Originally posted by XorEaxEax
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
"Very Disruptive" Change Hurts ARM Linux Support
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Teho View PostI can't imagine Linux license ever changing.
Of course this doesn't have to be an issue either way, if the kernel devs are fine with this licence then there's really nothing else to say. They set the rules for how to enforce the licencing as they are the copyright holders, gpl-violations which reported this licence incompability has no sway and neither does FSF, again it's up to the copyright holders (Linux devs).
Beyond that, judging by the mailing-list exchange this floating point emulation is mostly being done in user-space these days and as such it seems likely this in-kernel library will be deprecated anyway, so very much a storm in a teacup. The real action in the mailing list was the angry spat between Russel King and M?ns Rullg?rd, what was that about?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by XorEaxEax View PostHe made this choice, he (and the other copyright holders of Linux) are the only ones who can change the licencing should they want to (very doubtful)..
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by droidhacker View PostYou're obviously stupid, because it is almost a given that it is NECESSARY to fork the GPL to ALLOW COMPATIBILITY with licenses that indemnify persons or organizations.
Either way this has nothing to do with FSF, they can't tell Linus what licence to use or whether or not he allows 'or later'. He made this choice, he (and the other copyright holders of Linux) are the only ones who can change the licencing should they want to (very doubtful). Also FSF can't force the Linux devs to do anything in this regard should they think this is not a real licence issue.
Originally posted by droidhacker View PostIn fact, you may want to look up the reason why Torvalds REJECTED v3. I'll give you a hint: It has NOTHING to do with indemnification.
Leave a comment:
-
My initial thought was the same as recent posts above, ie that the disclaimers were similar to X11 or BSD license text, but I suspect the key issue is use of the word "indemnification".
IANAL but "indemnification" seems to imply something a lot stronger than the usual "it's not my fault, man" license text -- eg responsibility for covering the indemnified party's costs if something goes really wrong.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Ishayu View PostFSF is being a bunch of nitwitty asshats here, without a freakin' shadow of doubt.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by droidhacker View PostIt has just now become completely clear that the zealots at the FSF need to get laid. BADLY.
The clause:
In other words, use at your own risk, fuck you.
Quite frankly, I wouldn't change this license at all. There is no reason to. In fact, what I would do... is fork the GPL, and modify it to ALLOW this.
THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM ?AS IS? WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
Leave a comment:
-
Linus has lots of opinions. His opinion about GPLv3 however is entirely irrelevant, since he does not and can not single-handedly decide the licensing of the Linux kernel.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Kristian Joensen View PostOriginally posted by droidhacker View PostIt has just now become completely clear that the zealots at the FSF need to get laid. BADLY.
The clause:
In other words, use at your own risk, fuck you.
Quite frankly, I wouldn't change this license at all. There is no reason to.[B] In fact, what I would do... is fork the GPL, and modify it to ALLOW this.
It is a WHOLE LOT different than just indemnification.
In fact, you may want to look up the reason why Torvalds REJECTED v3. I'll give you a hint: It has NOTHING to do with indemnification.Last edited by droidhacker; 10 April 2013, 04:11 PM.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: