Verily I say unto thee, that BearItAll spake thusly:
> It has the potential to end up in a mess, but actually I wonder if it also
> has the potential to create two very distinc Linux-like systems, I know
> that would be easy to dismiss as a rediculous situation, but as the day
> goes on I'm starting to wonder if it really would be bad for Linux to have
> two camps.
I wholeheartedly agree with this post. Forking is not necessarily a bad
thing, and indeed can lead to greater innovation - just look at the vast
array of Linux distros, browsers and other technology based on the Gecko
and khtml engines, etc. Look at how Beryl split from Compiz, spun off a
whole new set of features, then re-merged. There's no doom and gloom.
So the kernel will remain on GPLv2 for the foreseeable future - fine.
IMHO the GPLv3 is a good and necessary thing. If others agree then
they'll adopt it, if not then they won't. If that causes forks
(temporary or otherwise) then so be it ... no big deal.
Meanwhile the GPLv3 will cause pressure against those who tend to push
the boundaries of the original v2 (Tivo et al), and force capitulation
with the spirit of the license, as intended. For those with honourable
intentions there should be no problem.
It remains to be seen how the "binary blobs" problem will work out.
Something's got to give; it'll be interesting to see exactly what.
(sorry, that's just the anarchist in me :) )
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They
| never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our
| people, and neither do we." - George (Dubya) Bush.
`----
Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) on sky, running kernel 2.6.21-1.3194.fc7
15:35:37 up 1 day, 8:32, 3 users, load average: 0.40, 0.48, 0.33
|
|
