>No. GPL is the way we protect our software and it is not to be changed ...
>for nothing. If IBM think that GPL don't suit their needs, simply
>they don't use GPL'd software. I don't want to write software under an IBM
>license.
Agreed.
>No. _I_ will feel exploited if a version of linux kernel will be put on a
>different license that GPL. The problem here is that if you change license
>and give IBM the way of have an IBM/Linux kernel, I can predict that soon
>we will have two different kernel trees: GNU/Linux and IBM/Linux.
>No thanks. If they want to protect their patents, they have to deal with
>GPL in some way, nothing more and nothing less.
>And about IBM releasing sources of their commercial software in exchange,
>I am not convinced that this will be a great deal.
Agreed!
>PS: and I don't think Linux kernel is going to change its license only to
> suit IBM needs. This will become a precedent that hardly Linux
> developers will want to establish. And then what ? M$ asks us to give
> them Linux sources under a modified license ? How can you deny this ?
> For IBM you've done it and for M$ no ? Are you trying to boicott M$
> market ? Do you want to have something to do with M$ lawyers ? (M$ is
> only an example here of course ... it can well be any big company out
> there)
Agreedddd!!
Andrea Arcangeli
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/