----- DRM "Misunderstood" Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 29 2006 @ 12:09 AM EDT I think one reason I hear why Linus is upset is the same reason that I am - GPL 3 is fundamentally different from GPL 2. It is different philosophically, even if the original intent of GPL 2 was closer to the language of GPL 3 - it was not worded with the same philosophy. I don't think anyone disagrees with this. And so now that they are taking the same name and "upgrading" it, it feels like a bait and switch. Is it so hard to name it different and not ruin GPL for those of us who bought into it back when we liked what it said in v2? The license is being forced down our throats as developers, not the hardware manufacturers. The FSF is apparently trying to usurp our software, hoping to make v3 viral via contributions, dependencies, and ignorance the way Microsoft's FUD always warned us it would - and I hate for them to be right! And if they can change the license philosophically once, what prevents them from doing it in the future, maybe after RMS is no longer involved? Will people really be able to distinguish my GPL 2 software license from "GPL" in general, with all the new baggage that name will carry with it 5, 10 years from now? I know a lot of people and companies that were warming up to GPL 2 are going to right back to step 1 in not trusting "free" software anymore thanks to 3. I really hate that I have to join them. -----
regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss