Linked by Eugenia Loli-Queru on Fri 4th Aug 2006 05:05 UTC
"We've been talking, meeting, and arguing over GPL 3 for nearly two years. Recently, the second draft of the long-awaited rewrite of the popular free-software license arrived. But Linus Torvalds wasn't happy with the first draft, and nothing has been modified in the second draft to make him change his mind."
Thread beginning with comment 149200
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-06
Version 3 is more than just quid pro quo "if you distribute changes to my code, you have to give your changes back" and becomes some kind of fanatical "if you use my code you have to sacrifice your first-born child to the FSF gods."
Been drinking too much of Linus' koolaid? You don't have to sacrifice anything under the GPLv3. All the GPLv3-d2 states, is that you can't use soft- or hardware DRM to screw end-users and developers out of the four freedoms embedded in the GPL. GPLv3 code will remain free FSF style.
FSCK this DRM madness. If companies want to produce hardware that only runs binaries signed by them, fine. I just wan't them to be required to publish their changes so that I can benefit from them when I CHOOSE to use hardware that doesn't have those restrictions.
Until hardware containing DRM chips become mandatory. Then you either can't buy hardware anymore or you might have a chance of finding safe harbour in GPLv3 software that gives you the keys to take control of those DRM chips.
It's your party. You choose the option you like best.
A little piece of advice, start reading the second draft comprehensively for yourself and try your utmost to understand that document. You will see it is not at all different in intent to the GPLv2.