and what was Linus' reply?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tuxchick Jan 22, 2008 8:03 AM EDT |
Another silly open letter. Why would Linus want to fork GPL2? As far as I can tell from his many public comments, he's happy with it as it is. Quoting: A license is no place for a political or social agenda. Say what? Everything has political and social implications. Just not the ones that you like, perhaps. Quoting: Unambiguously allow use of code in embedded devices (like TiVo). GPL2 already does this, and so does GPL3. What GPL2 implied and GPL3 states expressly is the hardware cannot be locked to prevent running any modified source code. Seems pretty plain to me, and I am not even a lawyer. Quoting: Unambiguously allow plug-ins, device drivers, and other add-ins to be covered by any license. You want the CDDL, then, which is a file-based license. The reasons against closed, proprietary, binary blobs are legion and well-documented. Linus himself does not like them, and has said plainly on more than one occasion that they are illegal. He tolerates them for the time being, no more. Quoting: Explicitly allow combinations with code in other licenses, but preserve the idea of giving back improvements. So you would explicitly allow mingling with closed, proprietary blobs, but only protect the "idea" of giving back. Quoting: Grant enough patent rights to make contributions useful, while not pursuing an agenda. Only patent holders can grant patent rights, sheesh. And let's debunk this "pursuing an agenda" FUD- that's what people always say when they're pursuing different agendas. Quoting: Make it short and sweet (v3 is too long and lawyerly). There's a reason it's long and lawyerly- it's a legal document. Quoting: Respect the freedoms of programmers (and their code) too, not just users. How does making it easier for commercial and proprietary interests to exploit FOSS code respect the freedoms of the programmers who write it? I think those are the people who matter the most, not the freeloaders who want to poach it. If coders want to release their code under terms that do not require giving back, there are BSD, LPGL, and many other licenses for that, and I'm pretty sure most FOSS programmers know this. |
| rijelkentaurus Jan 22, 2008 8:16 AM EDT |
What TC said. Also, it's been well established that Linus can't move the kernel to GPLv3 (even if he wanted to) without the permissions of all of the other code contributors (even the dead ones), why would anyone think he could "fork" it without the same permissions? |
| dinotrac Jan 22, 2008 8:19 AM EDT |
TC - One word: Coffee. OK, that's not enough. Not nearly. Why is it that every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks they can craft a freakin' license? Even if they could, why do they think they need to? So far as I can tell, Linux has done pretty well under the GPLV2. Linus, it seems, is smart enough to know that he is a terrific technician, project manager, what have you, and not an IP lawyer. There are many licenses already out there that have been blessed by legal beagles and have stood the test of (some) time. If someone with the right chops sees a need for something new, he or she is free to draft it, but spare me from pundocracy. |
| azerthoth Jan 22, 2008 8:55 AM EDT |
That wasnt an open letter, that was an open admission of having no clue. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!