| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:47:23 -0400 From: Joshua David Williams <yurimxpxman.lkml@...il.com> To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: GPLv3 dispute solution - new open source license? On 6/18/07, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote: > You probably don't want do design a license without involving a > competent lawyer. We don't expect lawyers to write kernel code, either. True enough, and I realized this when I wrote my initial post, but it's not what I wrote so much as the concept. I haven't seen the idea come up in any threads, so I thought I'd throw it out there. Open source and free software are clearly two different things, so it doesn't make sense that an open source project would use a free software license. The FSF has made it very clear that their objectives are very different from ours. The GPLv2 is a great license, but it's not perfect. The FSF recognised several of the problems when they introduced the first public draft of v3. Since they are heading in an opposite direction from the open source community, I believe that we are now facing a clear dividing line between the two camps. We cannot cling to the fifteen year-old license forever, expecting to never be burnt. If we can't adopt the GPLv3, it seems obvious to me that we need our own solution. -- It's a commonly known fact that most intruders come in through Windows. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists