> find offensive, so I don't choose to use it. It's offensive because Tivo
Not all of us agree with this for the benefit of future legal
interpretation.
> The GPLv2 is a *legal*license*. And no, the FSF doesn't get to define what
Agreed - everyone contributed to the kernel based upon the GPLv2. Lots of
different reasons, lots of different viewpoints about GPL2 v GPL3, DRM ,
Treacherous Computing, etc. The commonality is not political, not a
grand plan, not a grand unified social agenda but a bunch of people for
whom the GPLv2 was an acceptable license for furthering their intentions
whether that is education for all, a shared commons or just making a
quick buck
Alan
-
| James Bruce | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Peter Zijlstra | [PATCH 00/23] per device dirty throttling -v8 |
| Jan Engelhardt | intel iommu (Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23) |
| Peter Zijlstra | [RFC/PATCH 0/4] CPUSET driven CPU isolation |
git: | |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 18/37] dccp: Support for Mandatory options |
| Rick Jones | Re: Network latency regressions from 2.6.22 to 2.6.29 |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Josip Rodin | bnx2_poll panicking kernel |
