Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 04:24:10PM -0700, Alex Ross wrote:
>> GPLv3 is available at [1]. The draft removes ambiguities of GPLv2, and >> in particular, clarifies the old GPLv2 clause 3: "You may copy and >> distribute the Program ..." During the discussion [2], Eben Moglen, >> General Counsel for the Free Software Foundation, noted that he always >> believed that GPLv2 should be interpreted in the way GPLv3 now makes >> explicit. Quoting [3]: >> "Eben made it very clear indeed that he does not regard the >> issues that are being raised over Nexenta to be any >> kind of a problem even under GPL v2..." > That's his choice to interpret the GPLv2 that way, although given the > quite elaborate wording used in the GPL for this point I consider this > an attempt at a retcon. Either way, his interpretation of the GPL may > be binding on the FSF, but it's not binding on other copyright holders > who have licensed their work under the GPL; some of us definitely think > the restriction on distributing GPL binaries together with a > GPL-incompatible OS is a feature. It is interesting to note, though, that the GPLv3 has apparently dropped this restriction. That will mean that software with "or later version" clauses potentially won't have this issue once GPLv3 is formally released, although I haven't analyzed it in detail. dpkg is one of the packages with an "or later version" clause. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
