>> >>> IBM needs a way to tightly bind a patent license to the source code.
>> >>> Without that, they are afraid to contribute. IBM might even want to
>> >>> specifically tie patents to Linux. (not also gcc, HURD, emacs...)
>> >>
>> >> Then we don't need/want anything from IBM. Let them die a slow
>> >> death after Microsoft's own slow death from W2K.
>> >
>> >IBM gets thousands of patents every year. They have the one needed
>> >for strong JPEG compression and the original (better) bzip. Oh yes,
>> >we really do need things from IBM.
>> >
>> >It would be really stupid to not consider making them comfortable.
>> >Maybe they would want too much, but at least we ought to be willing
>> >to consider making a deal. They might just want less ambiguity.
>>
>> IBM is a commercial entity. They have commercial interests. The
>> license of GPL software cannot and willnot change. There are
>> some provisions for change of license, but most software is
>> impossible to change license on due to the immense number of
>> authors, and patch authors. This large number almost nails the
>> GPL permanently in. I think this is good.
>
>Sure it can... virtually all GPL'd software is "GPL version 2, **or,
>at your option, any later version**".
Correct. I was refering to GPL'd software becoming non-GPL
though. If the GPL changes, that is different from what I meant.
-- Mike A. Harris - Computer Consultant - Linux advocateLinux software galore: http://freshmeat.net
- 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/