Just a comment on the article (&quot;Open Warfare in Open Source&quot;) at<br>&nbsp;<a href="http://www.businessweek.com/print/technology/content/aug2006/tc20060818_977941.htm">http://www.businessweek.com/print/technology/content/aug2006/tc20060818_977941.htm
</a><br>about the wrangling over the new version (&quot;V 3&quot;) of the GPL.<br>&nbsp; I disagree with the conclusion (first sentence of the last paragraph) which<br>says, &lt;&lt; &quot;If Torvalds chooses not to go with version 3 for Linux, the Free
Software Foundation will become even more irrelevant to the business
world of open source&quot; &gt;&gt;.<br>I don't think there is any way that the FSF will be irrelevant to any extent,<br>in the world of &quot;gnu/Linux&quot;.&nbsp; Because when you get a distro, <br>unless it is some version of BSD or something [not usually callled &quot;Linux&quot;],
<br>a big part of what you get, is gnu software.&nbsp; The FSF not only decides <br>upon the licensing for the gnu software, they actually own the copyrights<br>(which are needed, for the copylefts;&nbsp; [right?]) on most of the gnu software.
<br><font size="6">&nbsp;&nbsp; Just my 0.02 ...</font><br>-- <br>Mike Schwartz&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<br>Glendale&nbsp;&nbsp;AZ <br><a href="mailto:schwartz@acm.org">schwartz@acm.org</a><br><a href="mailto:Mike.L.Schwartz@gmail.com">Mike.L.Schwartz@gmail.com</a>