<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3157" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I'm not an attorney, and I didn't "stay in a
Holiday Inn last night". But I've primarily heard the same arguments
<U>against</U> adopting v3 licensed code. They seem to have overstepped
their bounds with this version and many echo the same sentiment that it will
slow the great momentum that open-source has really built-up.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>So, given that I've heard it from multiple people
who specialize in that field, I have to agree that remaining with v2 would be
highly preferable to me. I frankly don't know enough about it to
understand that if you gave people the choice between using the v2 license and
the v3 license, why one would choose v3.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Thanks for the continued great work!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>-AJ</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=bod@bod.org href="mailto:bod@bod.org">Paul Chambers</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
href="mailto:dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk">dnsmasq discussion
list</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, September 11, 2007 10:06
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] GPL
v3</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>(putting on my professional hat for a minute)<BR><BR>If you
value the inclusion of dnsmasq in commercial products, as part of <BR>'prising
them open', then don't force GPL v3 as the only choice. The v3 <BR>license is
seen as a step too far by many in the industry, upsetting the <BR>equilibrium
between community and commercial use. In my personal <BR>opinion, if the v3
license comes into widespread use, it'll do great <BR>harm to the growth of
Linux usage in embedded devices. In my <BR>professional life, we've has
already forbidden GPL v3 code in our <BR>product codebase, and we're requiring
the same of our vendors.<BR><BR>I just think that GPL v3 actually *lessens*
the impact that open source <BR>can have outside the desktop PC world, and
that makes me sad. I want to <BR>drive more open source into products, but
this makes it harder to do so. <BR>If 'anti-TiVoization' clauses mean TiVo and
others are forced to go with <BR>non-open source solutions (or inferior ones
with more commerce-friendly <BR>licenses), seems like everyone
loses.<BR><BR>I'm sure I'll draw fire for this, it's a very emotional subject
for
many.<BR><BR>Paul<BR><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Dnsmasq-discuss
mailing list<BR><A
href="mailto:Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk">Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk</A><BR><A
href="http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss">http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss</A><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>