Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 8th Feb 2006 18:27 UTC
Linux It seems like Linus Torvalds cannot make up his mind about whether or not to use the GPL3 for the Linux kernel. After clearly rejecting the idea of using the GPL3 ('and I don't see that changing'), he now opens the option up again. "It's 'quite possible,' said Torvalds that the GPL 3 could be used, 'but on the other hand, there's a purely practical problem with any change of license when you have tens of major copyright holders and hundreds of people who have written some part and thousands who have submitted one-liners and small fixes. There are, after all, benefits to putting the kernel under the GPL 3,' Torvalds said."
Permalink for comment 94174
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Question
by morgoth on Thu 9th Feb 2006 12:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Question"
Member since:

I disagree. As soon as Linux does what the corporations want, the rest of us lose control. The 2.6 series kernel has been very unstable, and in fact, still is. It has not stabilised like previous kernel trees. Why? Because we don't have an unstable branch. Why is that? Because Morton and Co. feel that the big corporations don't like that, and 2 or 3 years development in an unstable branch, whilst having a stable branch with bug fixes isn't suitable for the corporations.

2.6 isn't unstable enough to stop you from using it, but it's sure as hell less stable than previous kernels. Some might argue that previous versions of kernels were unstable, and that'd be true - but only to an extent. The 2.4 series was unstable from 2.4.0 to 2.4.4, started to stabilise, then they had a few VM problems and it became unstable again, and didn't stabilise till around 2.4.15 or so.

What did they do? They tested the shit out of stuff in the unstable branch, and a new VM, until they got it working, and working satisfactorily, and then introduced it into the stable kernel tree. Now, we're just unstable. The amount of bloat and bugs are growing in the Linux kernel. The number of exploits are growing as well. This is a direct result of having features, features and features.

I seem to remember Novell wanting to dictate the kernel tree development, and around a year or so ago saying that the Linux kernel was offering to much to us "normal users", and not enough for the business users. Their attitude was basically, stuff the normal users, we want this and this and this in the kernel, the normal users can wait for improvements whilst we get our shit in the kernel tree. I don't like that. And if you had any common sense, you'd dislike it as well.

You are correct in your statement that the Linux kernel shouldn't move to the GPL 3 because it'll piss off the businesses. Good. And good riddance to them as well. They don't like it because it hits out at DRM, it hits out at software patents. It hits out at abusing GPL'd software. I'm all for the GPL v3.


Reply Parent Score: 1