Re: GPLv3 Position Statement

From: DervishD
Date: Thu Sep 28 2006 - 10:20:36 EST

Hi Lennart :)

* Lennart Sorensen <lsorense@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.

Raúl Núñez de Arenas Coronado

Linux Registered User 88736 |
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at