In the copyright assignment contracts, it makes promises about what it
will do with the code. I don't know the exact wording, but I've
spoken to folks who've done the assignment and they seem happy with it.
This ties the FSF into behaving nicely in a way similar to the way that
it's awfully hard to get all of the Linux kernel contributors to agree
to releasing under different terms.
Plus, of course, if the FSF were to do something ugly with the GPL v3,
it would be very much a one-time thing and cost them basically their
whole reputation.
Consider the differences between the v1 and v2 of the GPL. Pretty
minor cleanup and debugging. I think that's the magnitude of
differences you can expect. And I think that the FSF can be trusted.
The number of people criticizing RMS for being too purticanical and
not pragmatic enough seems to be some evidence that he's not likely
to "sell out".
-- -Colin- 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/