On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 17:26:07 -0400 Leo Famulari <l...@famulari.name> wrote:
> And only using GPL2 is part of that. It's a pragmatic choice in favor > of the goals of Linux's leadership team, which are different from > GNU's goals. Of course, Linux couldn't feasibly change to GPL3 > because their copyright licensing model is like ours: contributors > own the copyright to their contributions. There are too many people > to ask for permission to make the change. I heard something different about the GPLv3 and Linux. It is possible to require to license things under GPLv2-or-later for instance, so technically it is not a big issue. VLC also managed to do license changes, as well as Openstreetmap. As I understand, what happened instead is that Linux took a decision against the GPLv3 on purpose for completely different reasons. One of the reasons I heard was that if some software is under the GPLv3, you can also make derivative works under the AGPLv3. Another reasons I heard that is also related to that is that the lawyer who tried to convince Linux to switch to the GPLv3(+) did it without considering the interests of Linux itself (to put it lightly), so that didn't go well because of that. Another reason may also related to the anti-DRM provisions for consumer devices inside the GPLv3. And the first and the third reason might indeed be related to the interests of the companies that fund work on Linux. Denis.
pgpBaF6OQEmd8.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
