On Jun 15, 2007, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 3) Another thing I've tried to do was to try to figure out why Linux >> developers seem to consider v2 better than v3 for their own goals. I >> must admit I failed. The presented reasons don't seem to distinguish >> v2 from v3 to me, or rather make v3 sound better.
> What right does Linus or anyone else have to change the rules None. It would have to be an agreement between all parties involved. A difficult one, everyone knows. But see, this is a distraction. It doesn't even begin to address the relevant (to me) question: why Linux developers seem to consider v2 better than v3 for their own goals. I can appreciate the difficulties that there would be for switching from v2 to v3. This in itself might be a reason to not even try to switch to another license, no matter how much better it could possibly be. But it doesn't give any hint whatsoever as to why v2 is better than v3. In fact, it simply avoids addressing that point. Now, of course, each individual contributor may have different reasons to be part of the Linux community, and each individual contributor may have chosen v2 or v2+ or any other v2-compatible set of licensing terms for different reasons. I'd very much like to hear (err read), from those who think v2 serves their reasons to contribute to Linux better than v3, why that is so. Thanks, -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
