Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932224AbWBJWPI (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:15:08 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932225AbWBJWPI (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:15:08 -0500 Received: from inti.inf.utfsm.cl ([200.1.21.155]:13246 "EHLO inti.inf.utfsm.cl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932224AbWBJWPG (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:15:06 -0500 Message-Id: <200602061614.k16GBrDY002916@laptop11.inf.utfsm.cl> To: Pierre Ossman cc: Lennart Sorensen , Linus Torvalds , Alan Cox , Karim Yaghmour , Filip Brcic , Glauber de Oliveira Costa , Thomas Horsten , linux-kernel Subject: Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders In-Reply-To: Message from Pierre Ossman of "Thu, 02 Feb 2006 19:27:09 BST." <43E24EFD.1000905@drzeus.cx> X-Mailer: MH-E 7.4.2; nmh 1.1; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 18) Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 13:11:53 -0300 From: Horst von Brand X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0b5 (inti.inf.utfsm.cl [200.1.21.155]); Fri, 10 Feb 2006 19:12:50 -0300 (CLST) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1902 Lines: 41 Pierre Ossman wrote: > Lennart Sorensen wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 06:54:47PM +0100, Pierre Ossman wrote: [...] > >> Then I have to ask, why GPL and not a BSD license? GPL is after all, > >> forcing our beliefs onto anyone who wishes to benefit from our work. Nobody is forcing anybody to use Linux. If you don't agree, use something else. Which probably has its own strings attached... > > The GPL enforced the view on free software, the BSD license does not. > > The BSD license lets you do whatever you want pretty much. > I am aware of the difference between GPL and BSD. My point was that if > Linus feels that we should not enforce our rules on others then why does > he prefer a license that does just that? If people will come around just > by seeing how well the community works then BSD should be sufficient, or > even public domain. > I don't share this view, which is why I like the DRM ideas in GPLv3 > which close something I see as a loophole in GPLv2. You are free to create your own kernel under your rules, and see how well that one does. Linux is successful (at least in part) because people who work on it on the whole agree with its GPLv2, and so do people who use it. In any case, the split you present is quite something... either BSD's most everything goes or adding draconian no-DRM-ever-anywhere rules, GPLv3 style. -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/