On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 18:07 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
[...]
> However, as Ingo argued, not being able to patch holes, fix bugs and
> add new features is a very bad idea. He was talking about the
> software, but this is as true when it comes to the license.
Yes, but the license of the license of the software is/can be a
completely different thing then the license of the software itself.
And the GPL doesn't fit well for normal literature anyways - otherwise
we wouldn't have the Creative-Commons project.
> There are smarter ways of retaining control over licensing terms that
> don't paint yourself into a corner that's nearly impossible to get out
> of.
The copyright holders of the software can change the license if they
wish/decide. The situation that a very large number of people are
necessary for this in the case "Linux kernel" doesn't change the
theoretical possibility.
[ shortened to save space ]
> The mechanics are no different from "or any later version" provisions,
> really, except that then you establish what the goals of your
> community are without blocking upgrades that wouldn't conflict, but
> that would rather further the interests of your own community.
ACK.
Bernd
--
Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
Embedded Linux Development and Services
-
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/
