Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 8th Jan 2008 23:18 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 294996
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.
Exactly. Why fix something that ain't broke?
But it is broken. GPLv3 fixes loopholes in v2 that can be used to escape both the letter and the spirit of the license by preventing people from sharing alike.
I fail to see how this can be seen as a bad thing, except by those who like the ability to circumvent v2.
So I'm not sure what Linus's objections to v2 are. I understand the practical difficulties of making all copyright holders for the kernel agree on the change, but he says they'll do it if Sun does it for Open Solaris. So it appears it's not such a big hurdle after all, and it can't be ideological since he's willing to be swayed by another's example.
Come to think about it, I wonder what makes Open Solaris so special that Linus is willing to follow it and only it on the GPLv3 issue. Why Open Solaris? How is it and Sun's stance relevant for Linux? I would've understood if he said "I'll do it if enough other big FOSS projects do it". Or "I'll ask the opinion of major Linux distro makers". But Open Solaris and Sun? Why? Because he thinks they'll never do it and thinks of it as an excuse along the lines of "when I see pigs fly"?







Member since:
2007-08-16
I have to agree. I remember the earlier flamewar on the linux lists about this. Linus made his point well and sticks by it (as he should). GPLv2 does *exactly* what linux intends.