____/ Peter Köhlmann on Thursday 24 January 2008 08:35 : \____
> Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> ____/ [H]omer on Tuesday 22 January 2008 15:13 : \____
>>>
> < snip >
>
>>> I was rather stunned to find that even in a Free software development
>>> list you'd have people who are merely seeking to exploit. This wasn't the
>>> first such incident and I've been on that list since the start (2004).
>>> Either way, Matt Mullenweg was willing to listen, so it was worth
>>> bringing up.
>>>
>>> It seems like many GPL haters just use v3 as an excuse to attack. I know
>>> two BSD bloggers who did this.
>>>
>>
>> I was genuinely shocked to see some of the people here that I had
>> considerable respect for suddenly become rabid, irrational beings, when
>> the possibility of taking free software and proprietarising it might be
>> taken away, at least for the kernel, through GPLv3.
>
> What are you blubbering about?
> The kernel will probably remain GPL2 for quite some time
> It is currently not endangered to become GPL3
OpenSolaris adopts GPLv3, apparently (not yet known to what extent). Linus said
this would make him (unfortunately to him) re-consider GPLv3 as well.
Developers go with the flow and choose based on licences. Just look at BSDs
and where they are..
>> There are many people who, it seems, are happy to ride on the back of
>> the efforts of others, withholding key information which ensures that the
>> GPL's intended "freedoms" cannot be met, whilst claiming to be supportive
>> of "free software".
>>
>> It's more plundering than pragmatism.
>>
>
> You might list the "plus" sides of GPL3. That list would be extremely short.
> Shorter even than the list of posts where DFS did not lie
I think so too.
--
~~ Best of wishes
"Pearly Gates and Em-Ballmer
One promises you heaven and the other prepares you for the grave. "
--Ray Noorda, Novell
|
|
