__/ [ Peter Köhlmann ] on Monday 25 September 2006 17:54 \__
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> __/ [ Donn Miller ] on Monday 25 September 2006 17:35 \__
>>
>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>
>>>> And people out there think it is overdoing
>>>> I don't like it at all, I think the GPL should stay out of political
>>>> questions like DRM or software patents, as bad as those are
>>>>
>>>> Just recently the kernel maintainers did a poll. None of them was in
>>>> favour of the GPL3. Not a single one. They wrote a letter demanding to
>>>> drop the GPL3 in its current state
>>>>
>>>> So, in effect, he linux kernel will *never* be GPL3
>>>
>>> In fact, I think Linus and the kernel developers would do well to draw
>>> up their own license, the Linux License, or some such, which puts forth
>>> a bunch of terms for what can and can't be done with the software. Here
>>> we'd have a bunch of open source people contributing to their own
>>> license. That would be good. Something like the BSDL, except more
>>> restrictive like the GPL except perhaps less so would be a good way to
>>> go, IMO.
>>
>> *smile* No more licences! *smile*
>>
>
> Right. No GPL3. It is nonsense, it is not needed, and it will have bad
> effects.
> Additionally, even if you manage to have some apps under GPL3, this still
> does nothing to the kernel, which *will* stay on GPL2
I guess that Stallman /et al/ simply fear (well, at some level) being
rejected by their biggest adopter (and in some sense a GPL role model). Hurd
isn't going anywhere (yet), is it?
>> There's enough FUD going on /already/, which describes licensing as a maze
>> that deteres developers and enterprise adopters. HP has describes the
>> large number of licenses as a barrier. It's almost as though the licenses
>> are forked as often as the software, which in itself makes the seminal
>> licence a GPL'ed project with two many derivatives that follow.
>>
>
> Why then try to introduce a new one? Especially a controversial one like
> the GPL3?
True. I guess you identified the root of the problem. Licenses needn't be
modified unless a wave of new threats is rising (notably DRM in this case).
|
|
