4 ms·
I was under the impression that while it may be against the spirit in which GPL2 was written, it was an oversight and the necessary changes were made to GPL3.
by kinghajj 11y ago
I was under the impression that while it may be against the spirit in which GPL2 was written, it was an oversight and the necessary changes were made to GPL3.
- mindslight 11y agoAs far as I know, it has never been litigated - there is enough work making manufacturers release anything called "source" as it is. People writing new software just go with the clarified GPL3. Based on Linus's views, the Linux kernel being GPL is a happy accident of history. We should be glad it wasn't BSD so we at least ended up with DD-WRT/AOSP/etc. But we also should keep pushing to preserve the freeedoms that fostered it.
- marcosdumay 11y agoThe problem is that most people releasing GPLv2 software were not involved at its creation, and are doing it for the bare text contents or completely unrelated reasons. The original goals of the creators are not a very relevant reason. Yes, the GPLv3 fixed that, and there was plenty of time for projects to migrate already. Linux won't migrate, Linus already explicitly stated so.