On Mon, 2006-01-16 at 19:25 -0500, Simon Phipps wrote: > On Jan 16, 2006, at 14:50, Erast Benson wrote: > > > On Mon, 2006-01-16 at 13:41 -0500, Stefan Teleman wrote: > >> Disclaimer: This Post Is Not An Open Invitation For Yet Another GPL > >> Flamewar. If you feel the irresistible urge to engage in such > >> activity, please go to Slashdot. > >> > >> Thank you. > >> > >> The first draft of GPL v3 has been made public at: > >> > >> http://gplv3.fsf.org/draft > >> > >> On my first reading, it would appear that the linking with non-GPL > >> code restrictions from GPL v2 have been removed. > > > > Also, accompany wording in "system runtime" exception has been removed > > too! > > > > I guess it is a good thing. :-) > > During the discussion[1], Eben Moglen took special care to assert > that he always believed the GPL v2 should be interpreted in the way > GPL v3 now makes explicit - it was never the intent to prevent > aggregation of otherwise unrelated code because of the GPL being > triggered just because a system function or C runtime was invoked. I > found that clarification especially valuable.
Indeed! Quoting blog entry: """Posted by James McPherson (203.48.45.194) on January 16, 2006 at 12:09 PM PST Website: http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/jmcp # Fixed that - thanks, James. Eben made it very clear indeed that he does not regard the issues that are being raised over Nexenta to be any kind of a problem even under GPL v2, but he's clarified the operating system extension and aggregation language to make that obvious.""" _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
