IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

IWETHEY Home / IWETHEY Board / Linux Forum / Yup - but not over license issues
Post #274,351
by crazy
11/29/06 4:43:22 PM
Reply
New 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
New 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]
     Change GPL retroactively? - (andread) - (19) - Nov. 28, 2006, 02:11:47 PM EST
         Nothing retroactive about it - (crazy) - (3) - Nov. 28, 2006, 02:40:27 PM EST
             Re: Nothing retroactive about it - (andread) - (2) - Nov. 28, 2006, 03:13:57 PM EST
                 Define your goal and possible usage -NT - (crazy) - Nov. 28, 2006, 03:16:01 PM EST
                 Sure you can. For *your* work, *you* can... - (CRConrad) - Nov. 28, 2006, 03:38:39 PM EST
         Nope. - (folkert) - (13) - Nov. 28, 2006, 04:06:01 PM EST
             Nope to you - (crazy) - (12) - Nov. 28, 2006, 04:17:16 PM EST
                 I disagree. - (folkert) - (11) - Nov. 28, 2006, 05:46:17 PM EST
                     Yes and no - (crazy) - (10) - Nov. 28, 2006, 07:37:41 PM EST
                         You think Linus will accept patches under anything but 2.0? -NT - (CRConrad) - (1) - Nov. 29, 2006, 03:09:55 AM EST
                             Dunno - (crazy) - Nov. 29, 2006, 06:57:32 AM EST
                         There is no way that the Linux KERNEL will ever be... - (folkert) - (7) - Nov. 29, 2006, 04:13:17 AM EST
                             But the issue is not just the kernel - (crazy) - Nov. 29, 2006, 07:00:18 AM EST
                             Why would anyone fork GCC, etc? Who? - (CRConrad) - (5) - Nov. 29, 2006, 07:29:49 AM EST
                                 egcs -NT - (altmann) - (4) - Nov. 29, 2006, 01:00:20 PM EST
                                     That was neither Novell nor Linus rabid 2.0 gang, was it? -NT - (CRConrad) - (3) - Nov. 29, 2006, 03:25:39 PM EST
                                         Didn't that get un-forked, too? -NT - (pwhysall) - (2) - Nov. 29, 2006, 04:09:00 PM EST
                                             Yup - but not over license issues - (crazy) - (1) - Nov. 29, 2006, 04:43:22 PM EST
                                                 Why - is Amazon in the business of *distributing gcc*? - (CRConrad) - Nov. 30, 2006, 06:29:13 AM EST
         Thanks Gentlemen - (andread) - Nov. 29, 2006, 09:25:18 AM EST

Sittin' on the Group W bench.
45 ms