> Why should we change GPL?
In order to make a deal. In exchange for that concession, we would
require IBM to free up some specific chunk of their software.
It's basic barter. IBM would like it if we simply donated the copyrights
to our software to IBM and let them write the licenses. We would
like it if IBM simply put all its source code under GPL immediately.
Neither side benefits from unilaterally *giving* things to the other side.
But both sides can benefit from an exchange.
> I would like to know if people that contributed to GPL code is going to
> be exploited these days.
I don't think so. See below.
> Personally the main reasons I like free software is that is the only thing
> I know that make justice since it make no difference between a guy with
> three master degree and me ;), and so it allows me to play with code that
> would be otherwise forbidden to my eyes in a proprietary envinroment so I
> can learn tons of interesting things, and I like that everybody out there
> can do the same I am doing now and I'll do my best in my spare time to
> contribute it.
Me too, exactly what you said.
IBM wants to sell a version of Linux where everybody out there can do
what you and I and the other people here are doing now: read the source
code, play with it, learn from it, make our own patches, distribute our
patches to anyone who wants them, send our patches to Alan and Linus
for their consideration. As long as IBM Linux covers these things,
I won't feel exploited if the owners of the Linux copyright or the FSF
issue a new license to suit IBM's desire to protect their patents.
And I will feel benefitted if it's part of a deal where IBM frees
up some of their commercial software.
Michael Elizabeth Chastain
<mailto:mec@shout.net>
"love without fear"
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/