Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Er, why make Arch code license-incompatible with a lot of GPLv2 code
> that's out there, such as the Linux kernel and (for now) XEmacs?
>
> What's so wrong with GPLv2?
>
Ask Eben? or ask the DRM wonks at FSF? They, along with Microsoft's
interesting behavior in response, have given me enough reason to stand
in solidarity on this issue. v3 doesn't hurt anything and there are
pretty good arguments in favor of it.
I don't know about XEmacs but the Linux kernel doesn't have the
legal degree of freedom to move to v3 even if Linus wanted to -- so
it's kind of a moot point.
I don't care *that* much about license compatibility with existing
code. All but an a ridiculously tiny amount of the really good
code I'll see in my lifetime has yet to be written.
-t
_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
Gnu-arch-users@...
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-usersGNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
