Another polemic around Ubuntu

[Alberto Salvia Novella]

Michael Hall:
 > The developers behind the decision have been open about their
 > intention, which was to create a copy-left license that didn't force
 > itself on code of other licenses the way the GPL does.

The fact is that the moment their code depends upon the kernel, their 
license is automatically overridden:

GPLv2:
 > Linking [name of your program] statically or dynamically with other
 > modules is making a combined work based on [name of your program].
 > Thus, the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License
 > cover the whole combination.

Which is not a surprise, as the purpose of the GPL is to warrant all 
software to be copy-left.

And even if there was a legal way to work around it, it would be going 
against the intention of their developers. Which is the point, respect 
for their choice.


Michael Hall:
 > Sun did a lot of good things for free and open source software,
 > there's no reason to suspect their intentions here.

They are not longer Sun:
(http://goo.gl/C3mUyT)


Nathan Haines:
 > Linus Torvalds is pretty firmly on record as not caring about
 > copyleft.

Linus Torvalds (http://goo.gl/tUNk4C):
 > The fundamental property of the GPLv2 is a very simple "tit-for-tat"
 > model: I'll give you my improvements, if you promise to give your
 > improvements back.
 >
 > It's a fundamentally fair licence, and you don't have to worry about
 > somebody else then coming along and taking advantage of your work.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 6472 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-community-team/attachments/20160602/5fd84b8d/attachment.bin>