From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Wood Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 11:50:34 -0500 Subject: [U-Boot] U-book and GPLv3? In-Reply-To: References: <20090618145128.69F27832E416@gemini.denx.de> <20090706105526.AAC0F832E416@gemini.denx.de> <9e4733910907060541i6d59561asaa406522ae6558a2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090707165034.GA25947@b07421-ec1.am.freescale.net> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 06:05:35AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > In my experience, people who want a more permissive license > typically claim that their participation is absolutely necessary, > and doing without it would be a disaster. It tends to be somewhat > of an exaggeration. Talk about exaggerations... I didn't see anyone say that the "no gpl3" crowd was "absolutely necessary" or that there "would be a disaster" -- just that it's something to factor in when considering whether the project would be better off switching. And it's not as if the anti-permissive crowd ever makes potentially exaggerated claims about what participation would be lost with a BSD-style license (both corporate contributions that would stay private, and individual contributions from GPL fans that would fork (or not be done in the first place) to prevent the former)... -Scott