Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Their lawyers likely strongly advised against bundling GPLv3 software with their OS because there is a non-zero risk that some judge, somewhere, some day, will claim that requires them to release the source of all their software under GPLv3.

I think that, if GPLv3 ever gets sufficiently tested in courts all around the world (which is highly unlikely) that stance could change.



Why would GPLv3 be substantially different risk than GPLv2?


GPLv3 has anti-TiVoization and patent protection built in.


Yes, but that doesn't make it more likely that anyone would have to open source their apps or OS?


No, but those fears weren't rational to begin with.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: