"peterwn" <> wrote in message
news:4692eef5$...
> impossible wrote:
>> GPL3 is creating some sharp divisions in the open-source community.
>> Richard Stallaman's Free Software Foundation, which is never inclined to
>> trifle with business practicalities, revels in the new licensing
>> provisions intended to bar "TiVo-ization" of code and
>> Microsoft/Novell-type patent-protection deals. But not everyone, it
>> seems, is enthralled with this approach, since it runs the risk of
>> alienating customers who prefer to base their IT decisions on less
>> ideological foundations. Linus Torvalds, for one, went on record from the
>> outset of the GPL3 debate as stating that the Linux kernel would not be
>> released under the revised licensing scheme, because it imposed
>> impractical restrictions on both developers and end users. I believe
>> Torvalds has since conceded that it might be possible to release 2
>> versions of the Linux kernel -- one under GPL2 and one under GPL3 --
>> but he cautions against the maintenance nightmare this would create.
>
> No big deal here. It does not really matter if Linus and his team stick
> to GPL2. in any case, Linus has in a 'preamble' indicated his
> interpretation of GPL2 which differs from how others may interpret it.
>
Yes, but Torvald's objections to GPL3 are more substantive, don't you think?
There is a world of difference between GPL2 and GPL3 when it comes to
restricting what developers and end users can do, and this is his concern.
>
>> Authors of all the GPL'd drivers, utilities, and applications packaged
>> with the various distros face a similar problem now in apparently having
>> to either "choose sides" in this debate--GPL2 or GPL3-- or else straddle
>> the fence and inherit an unwanted versioning burden. And you thought the
>> compliance costs of administering proprietary EULA's were bad! No matter
>> how excited some peoople get at the prospect of tweaking Microsft's nose,
>> I think that in the final analysis it is open source development that is
>> really going to be screwed over by GPL3.
>
> It is really over to the individual authors and maintainer groups.
>
> There may be 'sharp divisions', and they may be in public, but this is the
> nature of running a bazaar, as distinct from a cathedral where the Dean
> and Chapter must have comprehensive control over the facility.
>
> The licences do not cause any problems to those wanting to write code and
> contribute it back to the community under GPL.
Well, if someone writes code and releases it under GPL3, then it **may** be
a problem for developers and users downstream -- I think that's the whole
point.
>
> OK, it is troublesome to those who do not wish to disclose source code or
> want to keep their code proprietary, but depending on their needs and
> markets, they would need to take the trouble to work around these
> strictures. This applies to driver writers too, they can make commercial
> decisions as need be, noting in particular that they are in the hardware
> market.
>
Yes, but now you're talking about virtually everyone who makes a living from
open source development, so this is no small issue. I guess we'll just have
to see how things play out.
|
Similar Threads
