BoyOfDestiny
June 1st, 2007, 05:34 AM
http://gplv3.fsf.org/rms-why.html
"First of all, it is important to note that upgrading is a choice. GPL version 2 will remain a valid license, and no disaster will happen if some programs remain under GPLv2 while others advance to GPLv3. These two licenses are incompatible, but that isn't a serious problem."
Anyway, I do agree. Although with Free Software I'm 99% of the time an end user. So I'm glad to be able to share the software and download it for free. I've benefited from being able to modify code (occasionally a developer will say here is a bugfix, it'll be in the next version, add this line to this file... and I can go ahead and apply that and compile)
I like what I've read here, ultimately it's up to the devs if they want to switch, as it's their code. I hope the end result is the simplicity of the gplv2, coupled with developers and the companies that fund many are happy with it, and assurance that the four freedoms are preserved for end users and devs (some of which are the same I'm sure)
"First of all, it is important to note that upgrading is a choice. GPL version 2 will remain a valid license, and no disaster will happen if some programs remain under GPLv2 while others advance to GPLv3. These two licenses are incompatible, but that isn't a serious problem."
Anyway, I do agree. Although with Free Software I'm 99% of the time an end user. So I'm glad to be able to share the software and download it for free. I've benefited from being able to modify code (occasionally a developer will say here is a bugfix, it'll be in the next version, add this line to this file... and I can go ahead and apply that and compile)
I like what I've read here, ultimately it's up to the devs if they want to switch, as it's their code. I hope the end result is the simplicity of the gplv2, coupled with developers and the companies that fund many are happy with it, and assurance that the four freedoms are preserved for end users and devs (some of which are the same I'm sure)