On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 06:20:33PM +0100, Michel Talon wrote: > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:21:00AM -0500, Kevin Wilcox wrote: > > 2009/1/14 Michel Talon <talon_at_lpthe.jussieu.fr>: > > > Apparently the FreeBSD project doesn't want to include any GPL V3 > > > because there are industrial partners who have banned the GPl V3, > > > out of purely ideological position, without any rational basis. I > > > wonder why the FreeBSD project has any reason to follow them. > > > > If you make the claim that banning GPL v3 is being done by commercial > > entities that rely on FreeBSD (and other BSD licensed code) for > > reasons that are purely ideological and have no rational basis then > > you either do not fully understand the significance of GPL v3 versus > > GPL v2, you haven't sufficiently worked with a commercial entity with > > regards to GPL/LGPL/BSD code that you (or others) have licensed to > > them or you are just trying to troll the FreeBSD community. I would > > wager the first two are the case here? > > Yes, i make the claim that, as far as the compiler tool chain is considered, > there is no difference between GPL V2 and GPL V3 because both licences > make no restriction on the software compiled with the tool chain. Incorrect. The read of our lawyers at $WORK is that there are open questions on the libstdc++ and other GCC libs in the GPLv3 versions. [This was pre-'GCC RUNTIME LIBRARY EXCEPTION' (Version 3, 27 January 2009)] So yes, there companies that are concerned about this for non-ideological reasons. -- -- David (obrien_at_FreeBSD.org)Received on Sun Feb 01 2009 - 01:23:28 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:41 UTC