Thoughts on GPLv3

[Cryptofreak]

Well as it states what are everyones thoughts on this? Do you think Linux will move to version 3 or do you think it will stay at version 2? One of the biggest changes on GPLv3 is that it they are taking a very tough stance on DRM. Well just curious as to what everyone thinks about it?

-Crypto

Edit: (adding a link to the Draft of GPLv3)
http://gplv3.fsf.org/draft

[cayalee]

sounds good. i especially like the bit about fighting DRM

[techieMoe]

I can't speak for Linus; he follows his own drummer, and if that drummer stays with GPLv2, so be it. I personally like the anti-DRM measures in GPLv3.

[scientica]

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.

any GPLv2 will effectivly be licenced GPLv3 too, at least that my non-lawyer understandning of it.

[jaboua]

any GPLv2 will effectivly be licenced GPLv3 too, at least that my non-lawyer understandning of it.

The GPL2 version used for the linux kernel excludes the "or
(at your option) any later version.", so AFAIK all contributors must agree if they're switching to GPL3 or their code must be removed from the kernel (unless they submitted patches under a GPL2 with the "any later version" part). Linus recently said on the LKML that he won't switch thou.

http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/1/25/273

[Javasnob]

I just read that Linus is keeping the kernel under GPLv2 and not changing it to v3.

[techieMoe]

Linus recently said on the LKML that he won't switch thou.

http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/1/25/273

Quoting from the above message:

Conversion isn't going to happen.

Linus

That settles it for me.

[Vergil83]

The GPL2 version used for the linux kernel excludes the "or
(at your option) any later version.", so AFAIK all contributors must agree if they're switching to GPL3 or their code must be removed from the kernel (unless they submitted patches under a GPL2 with the "any later version" part). Linus recently said on the LKML that he won't switch thou.

http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/1/25/273

That is my understanding, so even if Linus wished it, he couldn't.

Also, given the fact the Linux kernel contains the framework for DRM (or Linus said it was ok years ago), I don't know if it could be used.

[d38dm8nw81k1ng]

i'm with linus. anti-DRM should be kept personal, and not be brought into the technical side of things. stallman's problem is that he is intent on controlling all open source. i just hope he doesn't cause problems within the community by trying to go to war with linux

[ticklu2deth]

Well, I've always been a bit dense when it comes to understanding "legalease", but it sounds ok. I definately agree with the stance on DRM. Regardless of law, I have always felt that if I pay for something, it should be mine to do with as I please, give away (when I am finished), resell (the original for instance at a garage sale), copy (for my use or to give to family or friends (not making a profit myself). To expand my logic to the extreme; if I buy a "Big Mac" at McDonalds, it's is now mine. I can eat it myself, I can give it away, I can sell it, or I can even take it apart and see what its made of and recreate it multiple times to give to my friends. What I couldn't do, would be to recreate it and sell it for a profit using the "McDonalds" or "Big Mac" name or trademark. That's where the line should be drawn and only there.

Just my simpleton thoughts.