GPLv3 any thoughts?

[doublejoon]

Linus' Take on it

http://digg.com/linux_unix/Linus_says_no_to_GPLv3

[Tsuroerusu]

I think it's too early for anyone to decide whetever to use the GPLv3 or not, because we don't have the final document in hand, and we won't for another year, so it could change in that time frame.

[CptnObvious999]

I think it's too early for anyone to decide whetever to use the GPLv3 or not, because we don't have the final document in hand, and we won't for another year, so it could change in that time frame.

Thats why its good he spoke up now so maybe they will change it to be more riable for the Linux kernel

[Tsuroerusu]

Thats why its good he spoke up now so maybe they will change it to be more riable for the Linux kernel

I agree, this way people won't start FUD because of the "dangerous new GPL", which I actually consider a good upgrade so far.

[thetza]

Linus' Take on it

http://digg.com/linux_unix/Linus_says_no_to_GPLv3

Not surprising, since Linus has never really valued or understood user freedoms; just look at the bitkeeper fiasco. In fact, if he could do it again, he would probably release Linux under a non-free, restrictive license.

[Tsuroerusu]

Not surprising, since Linus has never really valued or understood user freedoms; just look at the bitkeeper fiasco. In fact, if he could do it again, he would probably release Linux under a non-free, restrictive license.

Now now now, Linus has actually stated:

nothing is ever perfect. So while I may have some niggling concerns with the GPL, they are in the details, and in the end, I actually think that the GPL simply is the best license for the kernel.

[CptnObvious999]

Linus' Take on it

http://digg.com/linux_unix/Linus_says_no_to_GPLv3

Not surprising, since Linus has never really valued or understood user freedoms; just look at the bitkeeper fiasco. In fact, if he could do it again, he would probably release Linux under a non-free, restrictive license.

I don't think so. The free liceanse got Linux where it is today and will push it to where it will be tomarrow. He does know and like the GPL liceanse but unlike RMS he is willing to trust closed source stuff not under the GPL. The reason they might not update is the new version of the GPL has certain restrictions and guidline that would require some (major?) changes in the code to be done which at this point is unfeasable.

[Tsuroerusu]

The reason they might not update is the new version of the GPL has certain restrictions and guidline that would require some (major?) changes in the code to be done which at this point is unfeasable.

What new restrictions would that be and what would be required to be changed?

[Gomer_X]

The reason they might not update is the new version of the GPL has certain restrictions and guidline that would require some (major?) changes in the code to be done which at this point is unfeasable.

What new restrictions would that be and what would be required to be changed?

The main problem is Linus has stated the kernel will only use version 2. If version 2 works, why upgrade? The newest isn't always the best. Also, switching to version 3 would mean getting everyone who has contributed code to the kernel to agree to the switch.

The main problem with v3 is it says no DRM can be included in software that the user can't turn off. Some people consider this unreasonable and less free since it tells you what you can and can't do with your code. People are wary enough of the GPL. Making it more restirictive and viral isn't going to help.

[Tsuroerusu]

The main problem with v3 is it says no DRM can be included in software that the user can't turn off. Some people consider this unreasonable and less free since it tells you what you can and can't do with your code.

No it doesn't, it says that free software can't be used in DRM systems, an example would be if Apple were to release iTunes for Linux, of course they could use their "Fair Play" (So they call it, I say "Unfair Play") DRM system. So I can't embed DRM inside the kernel, and I can't intergrate DRM into amaroK or XMMS because those are free software under the GPL. If I were to write my own program and release it under a proprietary license, sure I could put DRM in there.

People are wary enough of the GPL. Making it more restirictive and viral isn't going to help.

I think the GPLv3 does some great things, it makes free software a little more resisdant against patents, and it also prevents free software to be used in DRM (Digital Restrictions Management) systems, which I think is great.

Norway is actually considering filing suit against Apple for making it impossible to play music bought on iTunes on an iRiver or non-iPod portable players.

[CptnObvious999]

Norway is actually considering filing suit against Apple for making it impossible to play music bought on iTunes on an iRiver or non-iPod portable players.

Go get 'em Norway!

[snarkout]

They're just pissed off that iTunes has a lousy selection of Black Metal.

[treehead]

;speaking of The Source... i read this and just cracked up:

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70106-0.html

;i especially love this dig:

"The company has also expressed fears that making its source code public could allow hackers to find security holes in Microsoft products -- though, so far, intruders are doing fine without the source."

;all this runs a stark contrast to sun microsystems president's recent blog entry:

http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/jonath ... ing_around

;treehead