I disagree.

Post #274,257 by folkert 11/28/06 5:45:26 PM 11/28/06 5:46:17 PM Reply	I disagree. There will be a GPLv3 before the 2.x point release. GPL V2 doesn't mean GPL v2.x a 2.1 version is the same as a GPLv3. Even then, the retroactive re-license won't happen. There is no way UNLESS the original licensor said V2 or later -- [link\|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net\|greg], [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ *i_wethey* Freedom is not FREE. Yeah, but 10s of Trillions of US Dollars? SELECT * FROM scog WHERE ethics > 0; 0 rows returned. Edited by folkert Nov. 28, 2006, 05:46:17 PM EST I disagree. There will be a GPLv3 before the 2.x point release. GPL V2 doesn't mean GPL v2.x a 2.1 version is the same as a GPLv3. -- [link\|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net\|greg], [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ *i_wethey* Freedom is not FREE. Yeah, but 10s of Trillions of US Dollars? SELECT * FROM scog WHERE ethics > 0; 0 rows returned. Collapse All History
Post #274,267 by crazy 11/28/06 7:37:41 PM Reply	Yes and no There will be a GPLv3 before the 2.x point release. Of course there will. And very few people will use it. And some time later, another license that looks like V2 will come out, it won't have the Tivo provisions, but it will cover the broad patent protection like the article mentioned. GPL V2 doesn't mean GPL v2.x a 2.1 version is the same as a GPLv3. Even then, the retroactive re-license won't happen. There is no way UNLESS the original licensor said V2 or later No shit. Did you even bother reading what I wrote in response to the original post?
Post #274,310 by CRConrad 11/29/06 3:09:55 AM Reply	You think Linus will accept patches under anything but 2.0?
Post #274,315 by crazy 11/29/06 6:57:32 AM Reply	Dunno Unlikely. And a 2.1 patch would not be allowed to live with a 2.0 source - if the 2.1 adds restrictions, ie: no patent deal unless they cover everyone, which is for the lawyers and judges to deal with.
Post #274,314 by folkert 11/29/06 4:13:17 AM Reply	There is no way that the Linux KERNEL will ever be... Later than 2.0 (read as Two Point Oh or as Two Point Zero) Linus and all other Core Developers will not even accept anything but 2.0 patches or add-ons. In fact, if you look at the sign off checklists being developed to un-tangle this problem, you will see a point for 2.0 only. Anything else fails and will be rejected. GNU GPL v2.1 or v3.0 will become the worst thing since Microsoft Bob. The GNU-Tools will be forked and continued under v2.0. I guarantee it. IN fact many of the problems with the GCC toolchain, will be fixed and work better. The GCC Tool chain once forked will take all "super powers" away from the FSF and they will never be able to get the horses back in the barn. -- [link\|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net\|greg], [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ *i_wethey* Freedom is not FREE. Yeah, but 10s of Trillions of US Dollars? SELECT * FROM scog WHERE ethics > 0; 0 rows returned.
Post #274,316 by crazy 11/29/06 7:00:18 AM Reply	But the issue is not just the kernel There a MANY packages that make up a distribution. If all the majors other than SUSE agree to carry 2.1 (patent clause)code, then SUSE will have to fork and self-maintain a LOT of code as many authors move to it. It doesn't have to be a lot to have some killer anti-SUSE publicity.
Post #274,318 by CRConrad 11/29/06 7:29:49 AM Reply	Why would anyone fork GCC, etc? Who? Linus' kernel gang? I don't buy it. Novell? They couldn't afford to. What kind of koolaid are you on? [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link\|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603\|Jehovah]
Post #274,344 by altmann 11/29/06 1:00:20 PM Reply	egcs -- Chris Altmann
Post #274,348 by CRConrad 11/29/06 3:25:39 PM Reply	That was neither Novell nor Linus rabid 2.0 gang, was it?
Post #274,350 by pwhysall 11/29/06 4:09:00 PM Reply	Didn't that get un-forked, too? Peter [link\|http://www.no2id.net/\|Don't Let The Terrorists Win] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes! [link\|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall\|A better terminal emulator] [link\|http://darwinia.co.uk/\|[image\|http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/pwhysall/Misc/saveus.png\|0\|Darwinia\|\|]]
Post #274,351 by crazy 11/29/06 4:43:22 PM Reply	Yup - but not over license issues The FSF crowd REALLY want GPL 3. It seems most of the rest of the world does not. Since is if currently "Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;", RMS can made it 3.0 in a blink. Which in turn can have a huge affect on the hosted market. I'd bet Amazon would fund a few dozen people to keep the 2.0 branch alive.
Post #274,417 by CRConrad 11/30/06 6:29:13 AM Reply	Why - is Amazon in the business of distributing gcc? Or does the GPLv3 say anything compiled with gcc becomes GPLed? Bull fucking shit, man -- this would only hit Novell if it tries to stick to that Anti-GPL patent scam it [cooked up with \| got suckered into by] Microsoft. (Just like the GPLv3 anti-Tivoization provisions wouldn't hit anybody but Tivo and those who, like they, try to lock away their code from the user.) Nobody else; and not even them, if they'd just stop trying to circumvent the original spirit of the GPL. P.S: "Version 1.2 or any later ..."? ITYM "2", right? [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link\|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603\|Jehovah]

Welcome to IWETHEY!