Sun Microsystems is the latest company to become a patron of the Free Software Foundation. The FSF's corporate patron program allows companies to provide financial sponsorship for the FSF in return for free license consulting services. High-profile FSF patron affiliates include prominent technology companies like Google, Nokia, IBM, Cisco, and Intel. FSF involvement represents Sun's latest attempt to take a more active role in the open-source software community.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-07
It will make no difference to Linux development.
The vast majority of the people who actually develop the Linux kernel do so because they care about the Linux kernel or are paid to work on the Linux kernel. The number who switch because of gplv3 versus gplv2 will be trivial.
I said nothing about development. I am talking about distribution. If there is a whole sale switch to GPLv3 (which I am NOT counting on, I am only making a point), distributors would be more likely to make a switch to the Solaris kernel to alleviate any possible license incompatibilities.
Member since:2006-02-15
I said nothing about development.
Nobody said you did.
I am talking about distribution. If there is a whole sale switch to GPLv3 (which I am NOT counting on, I am only making a point), distributors would be more likely to make a switch to the Solaris kernel to alleviate any possible license incompatibilities.
Distributors of what, Solaris?
None of the Linux distros are going to switch kernels just because of GPL versions. It's just more work than it's worth.
Besides, how could the GPLv3 create a license incompatibility with the GPLv2 when the FSF says it's only trying to solve the same problems?
Member since:2006-11-26
> how could the GPLv3 create a license incompatibility with the GPLv2
Section 6 of GPLv2 says:
> You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
GPLv3 is expected to impose more restrictions than GPLv2. Therefore, GPLv2 and GPLv3 are expected to be incompatible.
>when the FSF says it's only trying to solve the same problems?
The spirit of (any version of) the GPL is to ensure that all users have the right to share and change the licensed program; GPLv2 is doing a great job at ensuring this. However, there are people that have managed to nullify the user's right to share or change a GPLv2 licensed program without breaking the letter of GPLv2.
One of the intentions of GPLv3 is so that the loopholes found in GPLv2 that nullify the users' rights won't happen in GPLv3 licensed programs.
Member since:
2006-02-15
It will make no difference to Linux development.
The vast majority of the people who actually develop the Linux kernel do so because they care about the Linux kernel or are paid to work on the Linux kernel. The number who switch because of gplv3 versus gplv2 will be trivial.