Re: GPL v3?

[Douglas Allan Tutty <dtutty@porchlight.ca>]

On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 10:15:52AM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 22:34 -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> > > It's appalling, but there is nothing to be done.
> > Doug writes:
> > > Would you elaborate?  It left me concerned but I'm not a language lawyer
> > > so I don't really understand.
> > You've put your finger on a major defect.
 
> Even PJ doesn't get it. All she sees is the Glorious GPL getting an
> update. Not that it is all bad, just that much of the "additional" stuff
> is... appalling.
> 
> The GPLv2 is very good and has enough language in it already, but some
> feel the asterix and tivo stuff seriously violate the spirit.
> 
> Nah, they just skirt along the line. Which is fine.
> 
> About all I can say without going into a long and very OT response
> (tirade as some would call it).

I wasn't suggesting an OT diversion.  I am wondering if anyone who reads
these things better than me sees any problems with v3 in relation to
Debian.  As in, if gcc or any of the fundamental GNU utils (we are
GNU/Linux) comes down in a new version (say the next gcc for example) at
GPL v3, will this prove a problem.  Right now, a lot of GNU docs aren't
included (e.g. see tar man page) because they're under the GFDL with
some clauses incompatible with Debian.  Is there any concern that GNU
utils (not docs) will become incompatible?

Doug.