On Sat, 12 Jun 2010, Dick Hoogendijk wrote:
Op Sat, 12 Jun 2010 12:00:39 +0200 schreef Joerg Schilling
<joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de>:
The main problem with GPL related license debates seems to be that
very few people did read the GPL license text.
Or simply do not want to and just believe what they have been told to be the
truth.
If things are told often enough they have a tendency to become true, even if
they are not.
Richard Stallman and the FSF are feeling considerable remorse over
GPLv2 (and especially LGPL) since they had not fully anticipated how
things turned out. GNU Hurd failed while Linux prevailed, so Linux
was re-christend GNU/Linux but is not under FSF control. Due to the
profound remorse, opinions expressed on the FSF/GNU web sites have
tried to add enough FUD to suggest that perfectly legal approaches
might actually be infringing ones. More recently, GPLv3 became the
current GPL license. GPLv3 was written over a span of quite a few
years, with many lawyers involved. Opinions/advice on the FSF/GNU web
site are now based on GPLv3 since it is the current GPL license.
Linux is locked into the GPLv2 license since Linus did not trust the
FSF.
Bob
--
Bob Friesenhahn
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
