Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders

[Horst von Brand <vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl>]

Pierre Ossman <drzeus-list@drzeus.cx> wrote:
> Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 06:54:47PM +0100, Pierre Ossman wrote:

[...]

> >> Then I have to ask, why GPL and not a BSD license? GPL is after all,
> >> forcing our beliefs onto anyone who wishes to benefit from our work.

Nobody is forcing anybody to use Linux. If you don't agree, use something
else. Which probably has its own strings attached...

> > The GPL enforced the view on free software, the BSD license does not.
> > The BSD license lets you do whatever you want pretty much.

> I am aware of the difference between GPL and BSD. My point was that if
> Linus feels that we should not enforce our rules on others then why does
> he prefer a license that does just that? If people will come around just
> by seeing how well the community works then BSD should be sufficient, or
> even public domain.

> I don't share this view, which is why I like the DRM ideas in GPLv3
> which close something I see as a loophole in GPLv2.

You are free to create your own kernel under your rules, and see how well
that one does. Linux is successful (at least in part) because people who
work on it on the whole agree with its GPLv2, and so do people who use it.

In any case, the split you present is quite something... either BSD's most
everything goes or adding draconian no-DRM-ever-anywhere rules, GPLv3
style.
-- 
Dr. Horst H. von Brand                   User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica                     Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria              +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile                Fax:  +56 32 797513