Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: [News] GPLv3 Goes Live Today

Roy Schestowitz wrote:

> ____/ spike1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on Friday 29 June 2007 10:58 : \____
> 
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> did eloquently scribble:
>>> Apologies for linking to self, but I'm too lazy to extract the original
>>> sources.
>> 
>> </snip >
>> 
>> What the smeg does sun have to do with it?
>> They don't own the kernel, Alan doesn't either but he's contributed a
>> buttload more stuff to it than sun ever has.
>> 
>> The kernel will remain GPL2 until every single contributor agrees to the
>> license change. So, it'll stay GPL2. (There'll always be some dissenters)
> 
> True, it'll stay GPLv2 without a doubt, but for how long? Think about how
> long GPLv2 has been around. Others projects will fly ahead with GPLv3 and
> some will appeal to developers that find their code compromised by
> Novell/TiVo and all sorts of other (?)nasties(?). Projects that adopt
> GPLv3 could lead to envy because they might be perceived as more
> modernised. Wait until things get uglier over at Microsoft's Good Ol' Boyz
> Club.
> 

The kernel has to wait, because every development that depends on it would
be stuck with the current version if for some reason they couldn't yet
release their own under gplv3. This is unlikely to be within the system,
but very possible at application level.

There will be some who have agreements in place, or sub-licence some
technology or control class, that means they can't move to gplv3 at this
time without breaking their current possition, it isn't necessarily because
they have agreements with MS, nor is it because they have in any way
compromised the previous gpl licences.

This pyramid effect will probably mean that the gplv3 take up is an ongoing
process for several years with some software vendors.

Take the big seller at the moment, the Linux based phones and PDAs, they may
well be in a possition like this:-

  Use the kernel under gpl
  Add their own software also under gpl
  Licenced use of a comms code or licence a comms technology 
                that is not gpl and may never be.

(I don't know if that is their situation, it is just the first example where
this might apply that I thought of).

Although I am all for us choosing GPLv3 released code over others, we have
to be wise about it, we don't want to damage those who simply can not budge
at this time.


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index