Posted on 10/23/2006 9:07:01 AM PDT by N3WBI3
Sorry when I say their hardware I mean they are the manufactures... i.e if I say its a dell box I dont mean dell owns it..
All good points--so I won't reiterate what's been said...
IMHO, we're better off with GPL v2--the third version is waaaaay too political.
Hey, as long as Slack doesn't contain v3 stuff--i'll be happy...8^)
BSD just doesn't have any significant commercial offerings except Apple, which requires a purchase of the Apple hardware and therefore significantly hampers distribution. OpenSolaris is already seeing a heightened interest since the GPL controversy erupted, there was a story just a couple of weeks ago that Google is considering if not preparing to switch to OpenSolaris from Linux, which would be the conversion of the largest Linux user in the world.
While it would be tremendously beneficial for Linux vendors to seperate themselves somewhat from the leftist Stallman and his radical anti-commercial philosophies, the reality is the majority of any Linux distribution is comprised of software licensed under Stallman's GPL, and Stallman owns the copyrights on much of that software. They can of course "fork it", but then they are left with having to completely manage all those pieces themselves, and with the tiny income that free software provides these companies it may not be possible. We'll know if they're serious about seperating from Stallman if/when someone sues him for patent infringement, too bad it hasn't already happened.
Absolutely, that poster antiRepublic has been defending Stallman for years, he'll flipflop whenever convenient like a good little liberal. One of his first posts ever to this website was some article showing Kerry Dean etc all using Linux which he renamed "Democrats ahead of Republicans on Open Source". Search the internet for that title and it'll come up.
Then you agree with the author.
If Stallman wants to publish a new license, he is certainly free to do so, but he doesn't have the power to make other people use it.
Stallman himself owns the copyrights on a large portion of GPL software, and since his current GPL2 license includes a sneaky "future versions" clause it appears he can legally convert anything he wants to the new version whether he owns the copyrights or not.
No, it doesn't. The copyright notices of many pieces of software contain the clause that it's covered by v2 or later versions, but the licencse itself does not.
ALso, the Linux kernel itself does not contain the "future versions" clause. Hence, the decision is entirely up to Linus, and no one else.
No, what is "ridiculous" is you claiming that the inclusion of any GPL3 software within the Linux O/S does not taint that O/S with the restrictions imposed by GPL3. If GPL3 code is included anywhere in the software, it can't be used for DRM purposes, per the license. And you can't do jack with just a kernel.
True...Again, technically true.
Sounds like even you are having trouble disputing the article.
This might be a valid comparison if they were trying to do the same thing, but they weren't.
Obviously they were trying to do the same thing - write a kernel - types of kernels may be a reason Torvalds succeeded first but the article remains correct, and you left reaching for straws.
True
LOL watching you try to discredit the Forbe's article was hilarious.
Excellent post (#16). I've not heard of any other major components to Linux that use GPL other than the kernel not wanting to convert, are there others? The impression I get is the true "free software" believers that wrote much of that code are actually looking forward to cripling Linux from being used in DRM systems.
They have more money than he does, but he has an army of programmers across the world that have dedicated their lives to his free software "manifesto" who wrote and manage most of the Linux O/S components. They're not easily bought off by bribe, so unless those companies are willing to invest the billions to rewrite or manage those products independently, Stallman is in the position of power.
It's possible to see it that way. However, the reality is that no one is "in the position of power" as both Stallman's (and all GPL3 software) and the linux kernel itself are all useless without the the other. If Linus doesn't like it, he won't convert the kernel over to GPL3, and linux users will be using older software versions, still covered under GPL2, while Stallman and his cadre will be developing software for nothing, as the newer versions won't be run by anyone.
Thanks for the correction, although the end result is the same. No tech ping?
the Linux kernel itself does not contain the "future versions" clause.
Which is why we're having this discussion, however as the kernel itself is only a tiny portion of any typical Linux "distribution", and many if not most of the developers of the other software components either transferred their copyrights directly to Stallman or will follow his anti-DRM lead to GPL3, a fork of Linux between the two licenses appears likely.
No. There was an OSS ping.
a fork of Linux between the two licenses appears likely.
I view it as merely possible--not likely.
Incorrect, as Stallman can use the very latest GPL2 Linux kernel released by Torvalds in Stallman's GPL3 Linux version that would include the lastest GNU tools, but GPL2 Linux would have to either fork off Stallman's tools and maintain them seperately, or find another list of utilities for the O/S which is almost impossible since Linux can't even compile without Stallman's tools. Bottom line, Stallman would get to use Torvalds latest, but Torvalds wouldn't be able to use Stallman's latest.
Incorrect. Stallman cannot change the license on a kernel. Only Linus can do that.
Torvalds and Stallman may very well agree on GPL3 in the end, this could just be some huge publicity stunt to try to gain one or the other some credibility. But it's starting to look like they are very much at odds over this, a dead giveaway was Torvald's appearance on Jokelaw that ended up with the site maintainer threatening to toss him for vulgar language and her final comment to him being that her mother uses Windows LOL.
Not Linus, not Stallman, not IBM, not Microsoft, not Novell, not SCO, not Red Hat. No one.
We (OSS developers) just have our personal reputations, a fleeting currency.
Sorry for the confusion, when I referred to "stallman's GPL3 Linux" I meant using a GPL2 kernel but the rest being GPL3, which is advantage for Stallman since Torvalds can't use the GPL3 tools without the overal O/S being anti-DRM as Stallman wishes. This is a clear advantage to Stallman, and based on his actions he obviously knows it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.