From: Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 05:50:07 +0200
Local: Mon, Jun 18 2007 11:50 pm
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:No. Linus is not AT ALL disputing the equation above.
> > "More Developers" (either "Free Software" or "Open Source") == "More
> No, seriously. Linus is disputing the equation above, dismissing my
But you are too f*cking stupid to admit that I *accepted* the
- "More developers" == "More contributions" == good
equation, but I was claiming that your *other* part was totally broken.
You try to claim that the GPLv3 causes "More developers", and that, my
But since you cannot follow a logical argument, and cannot make one up
The GPLv2 is the one that allows more developers.
The GPLv2 is the one that is acceptable to more people.
Face it, the "open source" crowd is the *bigger* crowd. The FSF crowd is
Hot air doesn't make the world go round. Real code does.
Look at the kernel developers who claim that the GPLv2 is better. Not just
There's a big overlap there.
Now, look at the people who try to sell the GPLv3 as the best thing since
I haven't really seen a single one. Last I did the statistic, I asked the
So I have actual *numbers* on my side. What do you have, except for a
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.