Searching \ for '[OT] Torvalds: No GPL 3 for Linux' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=gpl+linux
Search entire site for: 'Torvalds: No GPL 3 for Linux'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Torvalds: No GPL 3 for Linux'
2006\01\27@045424 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
This is quite interesting. What will happen to Linux
and some other software after GPL3 is released?

http://news.com.com/Torvalds+No+GPL+3+for+Linux/2100-7344_3-6031504.html?tag=nefd.lede

Personally I like Linux Torvald's pragmatic approach about GPL.

/* Quoted from the article from News.com */
In a 2004 interview, Torvalds indicated he wants the GPL to serve nothing
beyond the single function of keeping source code open.

"I really want a license to do just two things: Make the code available to
others, and make sure that improvements stay that way. That's really it.
Nothing more, nothing less. Everything else is fluff."
/* End of quotation */

Regards,
Xiaofan

2006\01\27@084636 by Peter Onion

flavicon
face


> -----Original Message-----
> From: spam_OUTpiclist-bouncesTakeThisOuTspammit.edu [.....piclist-bouncesKILLspamspam@spam@mit.edu] On Behalf
> Of Xiaofan Chen
> Sent: 27 January 2006 09:54
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
> Subject: [OT] Torvalds: No GPL 3 for Linux
>
> This is quite interesting. What will happen to Linux
> and some other software after GPL3 is released?


Nothing.  GPL V2 will still exist and apply where it does today.

Peter

2006\01\27@090211 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 1/27/06, Peter Onion <ponionspamKILLspamalien.bt.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > This is quite interesting. What will happen to Linux
> > and some other software after GPL3 is released?
>
>
> Nothing.  GPL V2 will still exist and apply where it does today.
>

Actually I know that Linux kernel will still be GPL V2. The problem is
that if Linus can keep Linux kernel as GPL V2 once many other
open source software packages will move to V3.

Is GPL V2 and GPL V3 compatible?

Regards,
Xiaofan

2006\01\27@104957 by Danny Sauer

flavicon
face
Xiaofan wrote regarding 'Re: [OT] Torvalds: No GPL 3 for Linux' on Fri, Jan 27 at 08:06:
> Actually I know that Linux kernel will still be GPL V2. The problem is
> that if Linus can keep Linux kernel as GPL V2 once many other
> open source software packages will move to V3.
>
> Is GPL V2 and GPL V3 compatible?

What does that matter?  The kernel can run programs whether the
programs GPL or totally closed-source with no redistribution allowed.
The only problem might be if a distribution wants to claim to be fully
GPLv3, which I'll bet would result in bigger problems than just the
kernel using an old version of the GPL.

To more directly answer, though, the new v3 GPL basically adds a few
more definitions which weren't explicitly listed in v2, but were
regarded as implicit in the spirit of the document.
http://gplv3.fsf.org/rationale has a good discussion, particularly in
section 2. :)

--Danny

2006\01\27@112920 by Nicolas

picon face
On 1/27/06, Xiaofan Chen <.....xiaofancKILLspamspam.....gmail.com> wrote:
> This is quite interesting. What will happen to Linux
> and some other software after GPL3 is released?

The intersting point is that the kernel sources have a slightly
modified version of the GPL; In GPLed sources there is usually the
sentence:
"This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version."

In the kernel they removed the very last part "or (at your option) any
later version.".
It means that to use a new licence, every and all contributors of the
code need to agree !!! almost impossible in pratice...

Nicolas

2006\01\27@125131 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
> This is quite interesting. What will happen to Linux
> and some other software after GPL3 is released?

Linux will be fine. The license doesn't affect the running of the software.

I think that keeping the license stable is important for a project
with many developers, each with their own copyrights. I don't want
my projects being released under a different license without my
permission. Linux has a *lot* of creators.
--
D. Jay Newman           ! Author of:
EraseMEjayspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTsprucegrove.com     ! _Linux Robotics: Building Smarter Robots_
http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! (Now I can get back to building robots.)

2006\01\27@130154 by Alex Harford

face picon face
On 1/27/06, D. Jay Newman <jayspamspam_OUTsprucegrove.com> wrote:
> > This is quite interesting. What will happen to Linux
> > and some other software after GPL3 is released?
>
> Linux will be fine. The license doesn't affect the running of the software.
>
> I think that keeping the license stable is important for a project
> with many developers, each with their own copyrights. I don't want
> my projects being released under a different license without my
> permission. Linux has a *lot* of creators.

But this will affect FSF projects like GCC since you are required to
transfer copyright to the FSF when you contribute code to their
projects.

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/why-assign.html

Alex

2006\01\27@133243 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
> But this will affect FSF projects like GCC since you are required to
> transfer copyright to the FSF when you contribute code to their
> projects.
>
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/why-assign.html

Is Linux an FSF project, or is it something separate?
--
D. Jay Newman           ! Author of:
@spam@jayKILLspamspamsprucegrove.com     ! _Linux Robotics: Building Smarter Robots_
http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! (Now I can get back to building robots.)

2006\01\27@133446 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> But this will affect FSF projects like GCC since you are required to
> transfer copyright to the FSF when you contribute code to their
> projects.
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/why-assign.html

I don't see how the FSF requires that. (and the link leads nowhere)

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2006\01\27@173031 by Alex Harford

face picon face
On 1/27/06, D. Jay Newman <KILLspamjayKILLspamspamsprucegrove.com> wrote:
> > But this will affect FSF projects like GCC since you are required to
> > transfer copyright to the FSF when you contribute code to their
> > projects.
> >
> > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/why-assign.html
>
> Is Linux an FSF project, or is it something separate?

It is separate.  GNU HURD is the FSF's official operating system.

Alex

2006\01\27@173145 by Alex Harford

face picon face
On 1/27/06, Wouter van Ooijen <RemoveMEwouterTakeThisOuTspamvoti.nl> wrote:
> > But this will affect FSF projects like GCC since you are required to
> > transfer copyright to the FSF when you contribute code to their
> > projects.
> > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/why-assign.html
>
> I don't see how the FSF requires that. (and the link leads nowhere)

>From the link: (not sure what you mean about the link leading nowhere...)

"Under US copyright law, which is the law under which most free
software programs have historically been first published, there are
very substantial procedural advantages to registration of copyright.
And despite the broad right of distribution conveyed by the GPL,
enforcement of copyright is generally not possible for distributors:
only the copyright holder or someone having assignment of the
copyright can enforce the license. If there are multiple authors of a
copyrighted work, successful enforcement depends on having the
cooperation of all authors.

In order to make sure that all of our copyrights can meet the
recordkeeping and other requirements of registration, and in order to
be able to enforce the GPL most effectively, FSF requires that each
author of code incorporated in FSF projects provide a copyright
assignment, and, where appropriate, a disclaimer of any work-for-hire
ownership claims by the programmer's employer. That way we can be sure
that all the code in FSF projects is free code, whose freedom we can
most effectively protect, and therefore on which other developers can
completely rely."

Alex

2006\01\27@191028 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 1/28/06, Alex Harford <spamBeGoneharfordspamBeGonespamgmail.com> wrote:
>
> But this will affect FSF projects like GCC since you are required to
> transfer copyright to the FSF when you contribute code to their
> projects.
>
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/why-assign.html
>

Yes I remember reading in the AVR-GCC list that this FSF paper
is needed so that they can submit the patches to GCC.

Regards,
Xiaofan

2006\01\27@193050 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 1/28/06, D. Jay Newman <TakeThisOuTjayEraseMEspamspam_OUTsprucegrove.com> wrote:
>
> I think that keeping the license stable is important for a project
> with many developers, each with their own copyrights. I don't want
> my projects being released under a different license without my
> permission. Linux has a *lot* of creators.

This is a very interesting. It is very hard to change the license of
a project. I remember that when avr-libc wanted to change to
modified BSD license, they have to send emails and ask permissions
of all the contributors to agree to relicense the code under the
same license.


Regards,
Xiaofan

2006\01\27@201609 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
> On 1/27/06, D. Jay Newman <RemoveMEjayspamTakeThisOuTsprucegrove.com> wrote:
> > > But this will affect FSF projects like GCC since you are required to
> > > transfer copyright to the FSF when you contribute code to their
> > > projects.
> > >
> > > www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/why-assign.html
> >
> > Is Linux an FSF project, or is it something separate?
>
> It is separate.  GNU HURD is the FSF's official operating system.
>
> Alex

That's what I thought. So I don't see how FSF going to GPL 3.0 will
affect Linux.
--
D. Jay Newman           ! Author of:
jayEraseMEspam.....sprucegrove.com     ! _Linux Robotics: Building Smarter Robots_
http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! (Now I can get back to building robots.)

2006\01\28@001901 by Hector Martin

flavicon
face
Nicolas wrote:
> The intersting point is that the kernel sources have a slightly
> modified version of the GPL

Actually, that is not part of the license itself. It is just the
"recommended" header for using it, not part of the license itself. Linux
does grant an exception to the GPL regarding binary modules, but that is
another story.

Also, that statement _is_ used in some of the linux source files. Thus,
those would be directly licensable under GPLv3. Not the kernel as a
whole, though. Every contributor to any file without the "or later"
clause (most of them), though, would have to agree to be able to move to v3.


--
Hector Martin (EraseMEhectorspammarcansoft.com)
Public Key: http://www.marcansoft.com/hector.asc

2006\01\28@034027 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> > I don't see how the FSF requires that. (and the link leads nowhere)
>
> >From the link: (not sure what you mean about the link
> leading nowhere...)

It leads to an almost-blank page stating that I must log in.

> In order to make sure that all of our copyrights can meet the
> recordkeeping and other requirements of registration, and in order to
> be able to enforce the GPL most effectively, FSF requires that each
> author of code incorporated in FSF projects provide a copyright
> assignment,

Wow, I did not know they changed to that. IIRC previously they just
encouraged this. Now I see why there are so any other free software
initiatives...

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2006\01\28@080346 by Neil Thompson

flavicon
face
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 09:42:27AM +0100, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
> Wow, I did not know they changed to that. IIRC previously they just
> encouraged this. Now I see why there are so any other free software
> initiatives...
>

Please note that the code assignment only applies to official GNU projects
like gcc and glibc - projects that are run by the FSF - it does NOT apply
automatically to all projects released under the GPL as some people seem to
think.


--
Cheers! (Relax...have a homebrew)

Neil

THEOREM: VI is perfect.
PROOF: VI in roman numerals is 6.  The natural numbers < 6 which divide 6 are
1, 2, and 3. 1+2+3 = 6.  So 6 is a perfect number.  Therefore, VI is perfect.
QED
                                                   -- Arthur Tateishi

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2006 , 2007 only
- Today
- New search...