Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161144AbWI1OUB (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Sep 2006 10:20:01 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161146AbWI1OUB (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Sep 2006 10:20:01 -0400 Received: from ns9.hostinglmi.net ([213.194.149.146]:51332 "EHLO ns9.hostinglmi.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161144AbWI1OUA (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Sep 2006 10:20:00 -0400 Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 16:19:32 +0200 From: DervishD To: Lennart Sorensen Cc: Chase Venters , Sergey Panov , Linus Torvalds , Patrick McFarland , Theodore Tso , Alan Cox , Jan Engelhardt , James Bottomley , linux-kernel Subject: Re: GPLv3 Position Statement Message-ID: <20060928141932.GA707@DervishD> Mail-Followup-To: Lennart Sorensen , Chase Venters , Sergey Panov , Linus Torvalds , Patrick McFarland , Theodore Tso , Alan Cox , Jan Engelhardt , James Bottomley , linux-kernel References: <1158941750.3445.31.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> <1159415242.13562.12.camel@sipan.sipan.org> <200609272339.28337.chase.venters@clientec.com> <20060928135510.GR13641@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20060928135510.GR13641@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Organization: DervishD X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - ns9.hostinglmi.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - vger.kernel.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - dervishd.net X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1948 Lines: 39 Hi Lennart :) * Lennart Sorensen dixit: > I wonder if perhaps the solution should be that the GPLv3 draft > should be renamed to something else to allow RMS to create his new > license that does exactly what he wants it to do, without hijacking > existing GPLv2 code using a license that in many people's opinion > is NOT in the spirit of the GPLv2 (which it could be argued > overrides the "or later" part of the license). That's quite curious, because my wife (who doesn't have a great software background and that knows FOSS and GPL through me) said exactly the same when I told her yesterday the problem that people like me, who has released code under GPLv2, may face if GPLv3 is applied retroactively to every software that says "or any later version". She said that of course anybody has the right of making new licenses, but that, as far as she could tell, the new license shouldn't be named "GPL" because it was very different from what we now call "GPL". Of course her vision may be highly biased by what I told her, but since I still don't have a clear position about all this GPLv2 vs. GPLv3 issue, I don't think that the bias is so high. Probably the renaming is just common sense and will avoid ALL problems. People like me are concerned only because all GPLv2 that doesn't state otherwise will be released automagically under GPLv3 as soon as the latest draft is made the official version. Otherwise, I wouldn't give a hump about any new license until I have the time to read it and see if I like it. Ra?l N??ez de Arenas Coronado -- Linux Registered User 88736 | http://www.dervishd.net It's my PC and I'll cry if I want to... RAmen! - 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/