Linus against GPL3

[Inprise]

داستان پرطرفداری شده این روزها ؛ http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=13542
کامنتها از خود خبر و داده های مربوطه اش جالبتر هستند ، حتما" بخونید .

یکی از موارد معدودی که باعث میشه آدم دیکتاتوری رو به دموکراسی ترجیح بده ، میتونه هر چیزی باشه مربوط به کرنل . اگه قرار بود یه مجموعه در مورد کرنل تصمیمهای حیاتی رو بگیرن ، کمپانیها براحتی روی تصمیم این مجموعه تاثیر میگذاشتن ، یا بهشون خط میدادن ، ولی روی کرنل حرف اول و آخر رو لینوس میزنه ، و اون خالق لینوکسه ؛ کرنل به سمت GPL3 نمیره ، و این یعنی حداقل برای استفاده از کرنل مورد علاقه ، لازم نیست برای استفاده و نحوهء استفاده از کد آزاد مورد علاقه ات ، با عنوان و پرچم DRM ، یک حاج احمد ج. ای باشه که صلاحیتت رو رد یا تائید کنه ، و معانی شخصی اش از آزادی رو بکنه به خشتکت .

( ::شکلک یه دسته گل و مقدار معتنابهی بوس:: )

[hosseinzadeh]

Torvalds then spelled out his position clearly: "The Linux kernel is under the GPL Version 2. Not anything else. Some individual files are licensable under v3, but not the kernel in general."

It is a mistake, Torvalds said, to "think 'v2 or later' is the default. It's not. The default is to not allow conversion."

eWEEK.com special report: Linux: Under the Hood

Torvalds added, "I don't think the GPL v3 conversion is going to happen for the kernel, since I personally don't want to convert any of my code."

Or, in fact, "Conversion isn't going to happen," he said.

Notably, Torvalds is not a real fan of the GPL 2 license. In a 2004 eWEEK interview, the Finnish Linux developer said, "I don't think the GPL is perfect, and one of my issues has been how ver-bose it is. Another is just the politics involved, which I haven't always enjoyed."

Still, he said, "Nothing is ever perfect. So while I may have some niggling concerns with the GPL, they are in the details, and in the end, I actually think that the GPL simply is the best license for the kernel."

Other Linux developers, such as the Debian Project community of programmers, are more positive about the GPL 3 draft. Still, they also have questions about how the GPL 3 and DFSG (Debian Free Software Guidelines) will co-exist.

There are also some rumblings in the business community about GPL 3's anti-DRM (digital rights management) clauses, but no company has yet taken a real stand against these proposals.

Given that Linux's core, easily the most popular GPLed program in the world, isn't going to be covered by the GPL 3 if Torvalds has his way, these points may be moot for many developers.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1915720,00.asp

ایضا عده ای از وکلا هم نگرانند.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1912999,00.asp