On 9/22/06, Alfred M. Szmidt ams@gnu.org wrote:
However, if the Linux Kernel could use the GPLv3 would be better than, as they say, a "Balkanisation of the entire [snip] Universe upon which we rely".
Those who wish to do evil, or allow evil, will always think lesser about our goals.
Or do you think that if the Linux Kernel 'll stay with GPLv2 this won't be a problem ???
Unless you get agreement from anyone who has ever contributed a legally significant amount of code to Linux, then Linux will stay as GPLv2 only.
Then, you think that the "Balkanisation menace" is only smelly FUD, and that GPLv2 and v3 can cohesist without problems ???
I'm not an expert, but we can have a GNU toolchain v3 and a Kernel v2 ???
--- Stefano Spinucci (a GPLv3 supporter, and a freedom lover)
Thanks for CCing the reply to discussion@, didn't notice that you forgot to CC to.
However, if the Linux Kernel could use the GPLv3 would be better than, as they say, a "Balkanisation of the entire [snip] Universe upon which we rely".
Those who wish to do evil, or allow evil, will always think lesser about our goals.
Or do you think that if the Linux Kernel 'll stay with GPLv2 this won't be a problem ???
Unless you get agreement from anyone who has ever contributed a legally significant amount of code to Linux, then Linux will stay as GPLv2 only.
Then, you think that the "Balkanisation menace" is only smelly FUD,
Yes.
and that GPLv2 and v3 can cohesist without problems ???
Yes. GPLv2-only has co-existed with GPL incompatible licenses for a long time, so why not here. The GPLv2-and-later can easily co-exist without any problems too.
I'm not an expert, but we can have a GNU toolchain v3 and a Kernel v2 ???
Sure, why not. The BSD folks had a GPL incompatible license, and used GCC all within all known legal bounderies.
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 08:44:06PM +0200, Stefano Spinucci wrote:
Then, you think that the "Balkanisation menace" is only smelly FUD, and that GPLv2 and v3 can cohesist without problems ???
Yes, that should impose a true problem.
I'm not an expert, but we can have a GNU toolchain v3 and a Kernel v2 ???
A GNU toolchain (in terms of gcc, binutils, etc) being licenced under the GPLv3 and Linux under GPLv2 should be perfectly possible. I'm no expert on the inner workings of Linux and how what is linked against it, but building GPLv2 software with a GPLv3 toolchain is not a problem. Furthermore building proprietary software with the GNU toolchain shouldn't or isn't a problem either. If it was a problem some (or maybe a lot of) software which is not licensed under the terms of the GPL and rather an incompatible license couldn't be built with gcc from a legal point of view, which isn't the case.
Regards,
Stephan
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 20:44 +0200, Stefano Spinucci wrote:
On 9/22/06, Alfred M. Szmidt ams@gnu.org wrote:
However, if the Linux Kernel could use the GPLv3 would be better than, as they say, a "Balkanisation of the entire [snip] Universe upon which we rely".
Those who wish to do evil, or allow evil, will always think lesser about our goals.
Or do you think that if the Linux Kernel 'll stay with GPLv2 this won't be a problem ???
Unless you get agreement from anyone who has ever contributed a legally significant amount of code to Linux, then Linux will stay as GPLv2 only.
Then, you think that the "Balkanisation menace" is only smelly FUD, and that GPLv2 and v3 can cohesist without problems ???
I'm not an expert, but we can have a GNU toolchain v3 and a Kernel v2 ???
Man I can't believe what I see. On what platform do you think the gcc, emacs, glibc, etc.. has been developed on before Linux existed?
Kernel space and user space are 2 very well separated world with very clear boundaries and public interfaces.
Simo.
Then, you think that the "Balkanisation menace" is only smelly FUD, and that GPLv2 and v3 can cohesist without problems ???
I'm not an expert, but we can have a GNU toolchain v3 and a Kernel v2 ???
Man I can't believe what I see. On what platform do you think the gcc, emacs, glibc, etc.. has been developed on before Linux existed?
It is a honest question.
Kernel space and user space are 2 very well separated world with very clear boundaries and public interfaces.
They aren't as clear as you might think, the "public interfaces" can be copyrightable. Many people think that using a GPLed library with a GPL incompatible program is ok, for the exact same reason, it has nothing to do with clear bounders or public interfaces, but what actually constitutes a deriviate work, and that simply means if you use some copyrightable bits.
In the case of Linux, there is a special exeption for these "public interfaces":
| NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use | kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered | normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of | "derived work". Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the | Free Software Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to | (the Linux kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually | wrote it.
Just like there is a specical execption for GCC/Bison/autoconf/... that allow the output to be used in/with non-free programs. For example, take a look at `(autoconf)Distributing'.
In short, just because there might be clear bounderies, and public interfaces, doesn't mean that copyright will magically vanish.
On Sat, 2006-09-23 at 14:14 +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Then, you think that the "Balkanisation menace" is only smelly FUD, and that GPLv2 and v3 can cohesist without problems ???
I'm not an expert, but we can have a GNU toolchain v3 and a Kernel v2 ???
Man I can't believe what I see. On what platform do you think the gcc, emacs, glibc, etc.. has been developed on before Linux existed?
It is a honest question.
Kernel space and user space are 2 very well separated world with very clear boundaries and public interfaces.
They aren't as clear as you might think, the "public interfaces" can be copyrightable. Many people think that using a GPLed library with a GPL incompatible program is ok, for the exact same reason, it has nothing to do with clear bounders or public interfaces, but what actually constitutes a deriviate work, and that simply means if you use some copyrightable bits.
When I say public interfaces I mean interface that has been made available for public use without license "problems". The kernel has tons of private interfaces too.
Simo.