Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 8th Jan 2008 23:18 UTC
Linus Torvalds, creator of the Linux operating system, still has no plans to license the Linux kernel under version three of the GNU GPL anytime soon. Torvalds, a vocal critic of GPL v3 while it was being drafted, prefers GPL v2, he told Jim Zemlin, the executive director of the Linux Foundation, Jan. 8 in the first in a series of podcasts titled 'Open Voices', which will feature the industry's top open source and Linux leaders. Torvalds also said Linux was the project that made the split clear between the religious belief in freedom advocated by the Free Software Foundation and the technical superiority that open source and Linux have always been about.
Thread beginning with comment 295079
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.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-07-06
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.
Well no you can't escape the letter of GPLv2. Some people argue that you can escape the spirit the FSF intended for the GPLv2 and that v3 fixes that.
Linus' counter is that he signed up to the letter of GPLv2 and not necessarily the spirit of the FSF. He doesn't think it is broken, since it allowes people to do exactly what he thought it would allow people to do. Linus obviously read the GPLv2 before licensing his code under it and was happy with what it allowed and didn't allow people to do with his code.
Actually Linus said no such thing. What he has said is that if Sun releases ZFS under GPLv3 then
"yes, maybe ZFS is worthwhile enough that I'm willing to go to the effort of trying to relicense the kernel. But quite frankly, I can almost guarantee that Sun won't release ZFS under the GPLv3 even if they release other parts. Because if they did, they'd lose the patent protection." In the same message he also says
"I think the only really interesting thing they have is ZFS, and even there, I suspect we'd be better off talking to NetApp, and seeing if they are interested in releasing WAFL for Linux."
Basically the only bit of Open Solaris that he is interested enough in to even to consider re-licensing is ZFS and even there he's skeptical.
He also goes on to say
"I think a truly open-source GPLv3 Solaris would be a really really _good_ thing, even if it does end up being a one-way street (from Linux to OpenSolaris) as far as code is concerned!"
Perhaps you should try looking up what someone actually said before you start putting words in their mouth.