Mark Kent wrote:
> Jerry McBride <mcbrides9@xxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> BearItAll wrote:
>>
>>> [H]omer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Happy "GPLv3 Day" !!!
>>>>
>>>> .----
>>>> | On Friday, June 29, at 12 noon (EDT), the Free Software Foundation
>>>> | will officially release the GNU GPL version 3. Please, join us in
>>>> | celebration as we bring to a close eighteen months of public
>>>> | outreach and comment in revision of the world's most popular free
>>>> | software license. Beyond the creation of an improved license, the
>>>> | process of drafting version 3 has helped highlight vital issues for
>>>> | the community of free software users. This is a moment to thank
>>>> | both the thousands who participated by commenting on the license
>>>> | and those who represented stakeholders through the GPLv3 committee
>>>> | process. Now, with the release of GPLv3, we will see new defenses
>>>> | extended to free software. These defenses will continue the long
>>>> | history of fighting all efforts to make free software proprietary.
>>>> | Please, join us as we stream live footage of Richard Stallman
>>>> | announcing GPLv3 from Noon (EDT) at www.fsf.org. If you are in the
>>>> | Boston area you can also join us at the FSF offices from 11:30am.
>>>> | Please let us know at <info@xxxxxxx> if you would like to attend.
>>>> | -- Peter T. Brown Executive Director Free Software Foundation 51
>>>> | Franklin St. 5th Floor Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA
>>>> `----
>>>>
>>>> Over 5,500 Projects Slated to Adopt GPL 3, and counting.
>>>>
>>>
>>> These are a mixture of questions and thoughts. I'm happy to be wrong and
>>> certain that I am wrong in some areas, but posters, explain in what way
>>> I'm wrong. All of us need to understand this licence and really that is
>>> all I am after in this post.
>>>
>>> The licence does look good, looks to me as a non-lawyer as the right
>>> licence for most opensource software. But I can see a few fights coming
>>> from it. I suspect that it will fall on us, the users of the software,
>>> to ensure GPLv3 is adopted as widely as possible. Even putting asside
>>> personal preferences for a particular software class, instead going for
>>> those that do take up the new licence.
>>>
>>> Bareing in mind that they are other licences so vendors and developers
>>> do not have to release all of their software under GLPv3, and very
>>> likely many will wait for a major release before they move source to the
>>> new licence anyway, which is a reasonable thing to do.
>>>
>>> I can't help feeling that the Novell side of things isn't going to bode
>>> well for any of us, good for the licence to protect us from future
>>> mistakes, but how on earth do Novell get out of this now.
>>>
>>> Novell are caught between a rock and a hard place, they made the
>>> agreement with MS, a stupid misstake but they did it and it's too late
>>> now. How could they possibly release under GPLv3? The alternative, well
>>> doesn't that suggest an alternate branch of Linux? Maybe those who have
>>> released under other licences now get their time at the top.
>>>
>>
>> You mean, like, MicroSoft successfully forking it's own version of the
>> linux kernel and gnu tools and apps and... do it well??
Actually, this might happen. And just don't think it will never happen. It
might very well be the way for MS to extricate themselves from a no-win
position they have now.
Take a basically sound OS like linux and put extra "value" (however
perceived by the public) on top of it.
They could very well pull it off, and actually succeed with it
And it could spell the end for GPL3 linux versions, should any fork occur
>> With microsoft,
>> one thing you can be certain of... they would eventually screw it up...
Yes. They just need to assign the Vista crew to that task
>
> Novell will have no choice but to go with GPLv3, as the various apps,
> libraries and in the end the kernel are migrated over.
The kernel? Nope. I don't think so. Just *pray* that it will stay GPL2
Libraries? Lots of those are LGPL
Apps? Which ones? Any which can't be forked easily?
And do you really want a two-folded linux world? One which has the idiotic
GPL3, and one which allows linux to flourish as it does now?
> The issue will
> be in the details of the agreement with Microsoft, and how easily they
> can extricate themselves from it.
>
I don't think they will, and I don't think they want to.
And I don't think they should pay any attention to people wanting to force
them. Nobody has seen the contracts they signed with MS, but everyone is
certain it is "a bad thing(tm)"
And if things develop in a bad way, I think they should fork GPL2 code and
stay GPL2.
You would be surprised how much was contributed by SuSE/Novell. Just *pray*
that they do not release any code as "GPL2 only" in the future to retaliate
to the GPL3 taliban. Lots of X and the video drivers were supported by
SuSE/Novell. The KDE team got a big chunks of their support from them.
Novell is much behind Gnome
If you think those guys should just throw away this support, you are
extremely deluded
--
I doubt, therefore I might be.
|
|
