Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Friday 29 June 2007 11:49 : \____
>
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> ____/ spike1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on Friday 29 June 2007 10:58 : \____
>>>
>>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> did eloquently scribble:
>>>>> Apologies for linking to self, but I'm too lazy to extract the
>>>>> original sources.
>>>>
>>>> </snip >
>>>>
>>>> What the smeg does sun have to do with it?
>>>> They don't own the kernel, Alan doesn't either but he's contributed a
>>>> buttload more stuff to it than sun ever has.
>>>>
>>>> The kernel will remain GPL2 until every single contributor agrees to
>>>> the license change. So, it'll stay GPL2. (There'll always be some
>>>> dissenters)
>>>
>>> True, it'll stay GPLv2 without a doubt, but for how long?
>>
>> As long as at least one contributor says so. That can be (hopefully) for
>> a *very* long time
>>
>>> Think about how long GPLv2 has been around.
>>
>> What has that to do with anything?
>
>
> GPLv4 might be a long way/distance ahead. It's not replaced by something
> else any time soon (it doesn't seem like it anyway).
GPL4? What should that one do which isn't already done by GPL3? Automatic
tarring and feathering of those who don't adopt it? Summary execution of
those who don't like it? Isn't GPL3 not already bad enough?
>
>>> Others projects will fly ahead with GPLv3
>>
>> Oh, GPL3 is the secret mantra to make projects faster? Good to know that
>
>
> If it attracts attention, then it develops faster. This is why Linux is
> pressured by Sun.
Attention will do nothing to make development faster.
And Sun has altogether different reasons
>
>>> and some will appeal to developers that find their code compromised by
>>> Novell/TiVo and all sorts of other (?)nasties(?).
>>
>> Explain how code is "compromised". Hint: It isn't
>
>
> Wine is one among the projects that are concerned about Novell's actions.
So code is not compromised?
>
>>> Projects that adopt
>>> GPLv3 could lead to envy because they might be perceived as more
>>> modernised.
>>
>> Yup. *That* certainly will be the reason. Snort
>> Explain how slapping a license on something will change its perceived
>> value
>>
>>> Wait until things get uglier over at Microsoft's Good Ol' Boyz
>>> Club.
>>
>> I don't think that MS really gives a damn about GPL3. They are not
>> affected by it as long as they don't use GPLed code.
>>
>> This is whishful thinking of the worst sort. It gets OSS nowhere
>
>
> I beg to differ. On many occasions Microsoft openly said that its May 14th
> attack on Free software was fuelled by GPLv3, which was to them the last
> straw. I can find you the reference if you wish.
>
They still aren't affected by it. As long as they don't use GPLed code, it
is of no concern to them.
And even *if* they would start with GPLed code, they have always the
possibility to branch a GPL2 code release and do a fork of their own.
*That* would be a detriment to GPL3, because then we would suddenly have 2
different, and license wise incompatible, forks of code
--
Hardware, n.:
The parts of a computer system that can be kicked.
|
|
