| 1 |
On Monday 16 July 2007, Volker Armin Hemmann |
| 2 |
<volker.armin.hemmann@××××××××××××.de> wrote about 'Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to |
| 3 |
3??': |
| 4 |
> On Montag, 16. Juli 2007, Jerry McBride wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Monday 16 July 2007 08:15:43 am Mark Shields wrote: |
| 6 |
> > Personally... reading what I have about the gpl 3.0 , I'd be pretty |
| 7 |
> > comfortable having Gentoo/Portage moved to it. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > It offers a lot of protection that gpl 2. does not. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > Anyway, if it makes Microsoft "catch up" then it must be good. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Actually, we should encourage commercial entities to participate the in |
| 14 |
Free Software movement, including letting them retain the ability to |
| 15 |
charge for providing software, as long as they are willing to let users of |
| 16 |
the software retain their four freedoms. Microsoft has made some movement |
| 17 |
in this direction... |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> it takes away freedom - I am not sold to that 'must be good' aspect. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Okay, this is off-topic, but it only takes away the freedom to take away |
| 22 |
users' freedoms, something the GPL has always done. BSD doesn't take away |
| 23 |
any freedoms, but I'm unconvinced that it's a good thing for Free Software |
| 24 |
to be able to be "locked up". |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
*I* think the GPLv3 is better, and that it would be good to move KDE toward |
| 27 |
GPLv3/LGPLv3 licensing. However, that is a decision that the project will |
| 28 |
have to make as a group and it would require reimplementing or relicensing |
| 29 |
all the code licensed to the under the GPLv2. That's a tough sell. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. |
| 33 |
bss03@××××××××××.net ((_/)o o(\_)) |
| 34 |
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' |
| 35 |
http://iguanasuicide.org/ \_/ |
Archives