Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 24th Oct 2006 20:23 UTC, submitted by poohgee
GNU, GPL, Open Source "When I wrote about the wrangling over the GNU GPLv3 licence a month back, it provoked a lively conversation in the comments. Given this evident passion among readers, I thought it would be interesting to ask the top hackers - the ones actually involved in the discussions - for their thoughts on the matter. So I contacted Richard Stallman for the FSF angle, and a bunch of the top kernel hackers - Linus, Alan Cox, Greg Kroah-Hartman, Andrew Morton and Dave Miller - for their view."
Permalink for comment 175538
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
B. Janssen
Member since:
2006-10-11

Right you are. And it's not the Linux kernel developers decision to make if the FSF creates a new version of the GPL or not.

The changing legal landscape -- remember, there wasn't DMCA, DRM and siblings when the GPL2 was created -- just requires an adaption of the license to enable the goals that the FSF has been vocally advocating from day one. The motives and goals are even explicitly documented for all to see on their homepage -- and have been for the last 10 years. Thus i'm really surprised that the Linux kernel developers didn't see that coming and didn't get involved earlier if they wanted to have a say. I mean, they should know that neither software nor legal constructs exist in vacuums and that the FSF has been very clear and vocal about their motives and goals with regards to software licences and was bound to adapt their license if changes of the legal situation required it. Therefore the FSF's stance hasn't changed that much, it is the legal environment that changed and the Linux kernel developer seem to have missed the changes.

Now, what's HURD doing? ;-)

Reply Parent Score: 1