| 1 |
On Monday 14 January 2008, James wrote: |
| 2 |
> OK, then why does the GPL not make a simple rule change. If you have |
| 3 |
> grossed over 1 million dollars on your linux product or service, then |
| 4 |
> you have to open source your code. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Because it *already* says that if you redistribute your code you already |
| 7 |
*have* to open source it. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I suppose by implication you mean that companies grossing less than 1 |
| 10 |
million dollars are not required to open source their stuff. Well, that |
| 11 |
flies in the face of the 4 freedoms that the GPL is built on. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
A change like that is incompatible with GPL2 so we come back to the same |
| 14 |
mess we currently have with GPL3. The Linux kernel is licensed GPL2 |
| 15 |
ONLY (Linus removed the "or later" clause) and that can't be |
| 16 |
realistically changed. The only known way to do it would be to get the |
| 17 |
agreement of a large group of kernel code copyright holders, take all |
| 18 |
their code currently in the kernel, strip out everything else, rewrite |
| 19 |
the now missing bits and re-license the result. Note that this will |
| 20 |
involve huge amounts of developer work, for no discernible benefit to |
| 21 |
the developer. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Seeing as Linus himself has stated that he has absolutely no intention |
| 24 |
of changing the license on the kernel, your idea is unworkable. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 28 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-user@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives