Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I'm familiar with this clip and listened to it several times. He doesn't like the GPLv3 for the reasons you give, and from what I understand, what he finds sneaky is not the GPLv3 itself (he recognizes that the GPLv3 can suit some people and is fine with this), but the fact that the GPLv3 has been written as a revision of the GPLv2 while it should have been an entirely new license (that would not interact with the "or later" mechanism and impact existing software with this or later clause). He says this in the sentence just before your citation.

From what I understand, he would have been fine with a revision to the GPLv2 that fixes some issues but does not change its spirit.

Now, that the GPLv3 is not in the same spirit than the GPLv2 is an opinion, and he does a good job of arguing his opinion on the matter.

> This is the same kind of v3 nonsense as TFA, is it not?

No, I don't think so.

edit: oh, ok, I understand what you mean. The nonsense you are speaking about is the FSF people telling Linus Torvalds that he can use GPLv3 without the tivoisation clause and still be compatible with the GPLv3, which indeed seems non nonsensical. The GPLv3 itself is not sneaky though, it's how it was sold to Linus IIUC.



Having the Linux kernel as part of the GPL/FSF brand is critical marketing for the FSF. Linux is the thing that is the GPL in most people's minds in business and tech. They know that and are willing to break their own rules to keep it.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: