GPL is crap
Well actually, no. I'm a big fan of it - at least GPL1 and GPL2.As for GPL3: I cannot do anything but agree with Linus in that the provisions about security Keys are quite ludicrous. Maybe it was unintended way that it was written - in which case I would expect that it would be addressed in the redraft. You will find section 1 interesting in this regard. It seems to require the publishing of private keys. This makes as much sense as our ATO when it instuted a public-private key identification system by generating your private key for you. A private key must be private - otherwise how can it have any value??
To quote the great man: "I think it's insane to require people to make their private signing keys available, for example. I wouldn't do it. So I don't think the GPL v3 conversion is going to happen for the kernel, since I personally don't want to convert any of my code."
There is also a restriction on how the program can be used. It appears to be the equivalent of the old "TV tax" Australia used to have till the populous said "enough!" and refused to pay it. Basically it dictates what can be done with GPL3 licenced software. Is that not the purview of the the author? (of course it is, and the way to maintain you coding freedom is to use GPL2 or something else other than GPL3)
No comments:
No trackbacks:
Trackback link: