OneAndOneIs2

This is thinking out loud more than a coherent article, so don't expect much in the way of structure. . .

The anti-GPL3 stance of the kernel devs has lead to the expected river of drivel on Slashdot, who are mostly anti-DRM and therefore pro-GPL3. Most comments are notably by non-developers who clearly have no idea what the situation is. There are even halfwits on there saying that "If Linus et al won't GPL3 the kernel, we'll just fork Linux!"

Duhhhhh. . . Linux is GPL2 only. You can fork it as many times as you like, only by completely re-writing it will you be able to GPL3 it. If you want a GPL3 kernel, you would do better to look elsewhere or start from scratch.

On the other hand. . . If GPL3 comes out in its current form, forking WILL occur, because the FSF owns most of the GNU tools, and will move them all to GPL3. Which many developers apparently won't accept.

Result? Well, all the GNU tools can be distributed as GPL2 or GPL3. So the pro-GPL2 devs can fork the GNU tools and continue to use them under GPL2. But the GPL3 devs will be right back into the situation they were in 15 years ago: Lots of GNU tools, and no compatibly-licensed kernel to run them on.

If there really are lots of pro-GPL3 devs out there, this might finally result in Hurd getting the rush of devs it needs to actually get it into mainstream use. It's languished in limbo for over 15 years whilst Linux has stormed from strength to strength, it would be kind of refreshing to see "The GNU operating system" rather than that tiresome hybrid. . .

There's been argument for years about Free vs. Open Source software. GPL3 could be the thing that finally settles it for good: GPL2 can be considered an OS license, where GPL3 is much more FS biased.

If GPL3 is released as-is, the OS devs will fork all current GPL2 code and there will be a complete GPL2 operating system, with all the current tools of a Linux distro.

The FS devs will have to do a lot of work replacing all the GPL2 software that doesn't get moved up to the GPL3, but (particularly if they make us of BSD code) they may be able to do that without much trouble.

So then you'll have two complete operating systems. One will be GPL2, one will be GPL3. That means the Linux OS will be Open but not Free, and the GNU OS will be Free rather than Open.

And then we'll find out if most devs really want Free or Open software, and the tired old argument will be laid to rest forever.

Incidentally, I can't seem to work out if Qt is released under GPL 2 only, or "GPL 2 or above" - if we do get a forking, will the GPL 3 guys be bereft of KDE?