Linus Torvalds joins the debate:
View: https://youtu.be/PaKIZ7gJlRU
So many on here would agree with him. I agree with a few points he makes, and why he chooses not to use GPL3. I partially agree with his views on GPL2, but I believe, that's not the way.
He used a different license before he used GPL2. He didn't like how FSF did with GPL3, and he was happy he made his kernel GPL2 only on purpose before they came out with GPL3. Linus didn't like Tivolization for one, other terms about his idea of sharing code, and that the terms of GPL3 weren't what they stated it would be. He recommended a different license steward than FSF after he didn't like the way they handled GPL3. At the time he spoke of it, he said, he prefers EFF as an organization.
If he Linus allowed his kernel to be GPL version 2 or greater, it would have taken derivatives away from the way he liked how GPL2 was, and removed certain freedoms for that additional code which went under GPL3, that it couldn't go back to GPL2.
It would be nice if there was a way in which Linus wanted, but which also allowed drivers to be used not having them to be made into GPL2, a more standard way than a linking exception. There's a lot of sway ability there, as most programs are licensed to work with the Linux kernel. If he made his own license for operating systems, emulators and kernels, many added pieces like hardware drivers which the authorship is around would switch to that, but it's likely best for that project to stay compatible with the already used license as is. That's his authorship to license as he wishes.
It would be refreshing to see other individuals', projects' and organizations' arguments why they stayed with GPL2 rather than GPL3.
Also:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntMFJjV_DSY
.
Back to permissively licensed and public domain code. I see that a lot of proponents of it, end up with projects with lots of unsustained code. Permissive is good allutristically, and I'm for it, but I recognize that a capable programmer and/or organization is needed to maintain it to keep it in working condition before a more restrictive license can snap it up and make derivatives that out compete it. That's why I'm for: an ISC like license with a document modifications clause, OSL 3, a modified OSL 3.0 to replace GPL, Apache 2.0 license, ISC based license being the most simple file based with everything in directory belongs under license. When there's enough people and talent to maintain other permissively licensed code, I support that too.
I support the MPL, Eclipse and other file-based copyleft ecosystem as well, especially, because it allows compatibility for use, and doesn't overreach into other code.
So many on here would agree with him. I agree with a few points he makes, and why he chooses not to use GPL3. I partially agree with his views on GPL2, but I believe, that's not the way.
He used a different license before he used GPL2. He didn't like how FSF did with GPL3, and he was happy he made his kernel GPL2 only on purpose before they came out with GPL3. Linus didn't like Tivolization for one, other terms about his idea of sharing code, and that the terms of GPL3 weren't what they stated it would be. He recommended a different license steward than FSF after he didn't like the way they handled GPL3. At the time he spoke of it, he said, he prefers EFF as an organization.
If he Linus allowed his kernel to be GPL version 2 or greater, it would have taken derivatives away from the way he liked how GPL2 was, and removed certain freedoms for that additional code which went under GPL3, that it couldn't go back to GPL2.
It would be nice if there was a way in which Linus wanted, but which also allowed drivers to be used not having them to be made into GPL2, a more standard way than a linking exception. There's a lot of sway ability there, as most programs are licensed to work with the Linux kernel. If he made his own license for operating systems, emulators and kernels, many added pieces like hardware drivers which the authorship is around would switch to that, but it's likely best for that project to stay compatible with the already used license as is. That's his authorship to license as he wishes.
It would be refreshing to see other individuals', projects' and organizations' arguments why they stayed with GPL2 rather than GPL3.
Also:
.
Back to permissively licensed and public domain code. I see that a lot of proponents of it, end up with projects with lots of unsustained code. Permissive is good allutristically, and I'm for it, but I recognize that a capable programmer and/or organization is needed to maintain it to keep it in working condition before a more restrictive license can snap it up and make derivatives that out compete it. That's why I'm for: an ISC like license with a document modifications clause, OSL 3, a modified OSL 3.0 to replace GPL, Apache 2.0 license, ISC based license being the most simple file based with everything in directory belongs under license. When there's enough people and talent to maintain other permissively licensed code, I support that too.
I support the MPL, Eclipse and other file-based copyleft ecosystem as well, especially, because it allows compatibility for use, and doesn't overreach into other code.
