Re: Linux and GPLv2
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:01:06AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> First define "problem" and "fix".
I think it's self-explanatory--a major loophole, the discovery of a
major, unintended restriction in the language that does free software
no good, etc.
There havn't been any such bugs, though, fortunately. Some people don't
like the "PHP loophole" or whatever you want to call it, but I don't
believe that's fixable in a free license, and some people think stronger
patent language might be helpful, but there just hasn't been anything
that's clearly a problem and needs a change to the GPL.
> Such language is fine as long as the copyright holder and the license
> author are the same entity. New versions of the license are likely to
> reflect changes in the opinions of the authors, and they have every
> right to make provisions for a modified license to automatically apply
> to already released works. The danger arises when people start
> out-sourcing the writing of licenses to third parties. The FSF has
> its own agenda, and has little reason to consider the opinions of
> others, who just happen to use their license texts, when writing the
> next version.
A couple years ago, this would all have been patently false. The FSF
has a very strong interest in their notion of "freedom" being considered
reliable, and having the community trust them to remain consistent--as
they did quite well for a very long time. A couple years ago, I wouldn't
have had a problem with the FSF being able to make such changes--the
alternatives are "don't fix problems" and "fragment GPL source", neither
of which is any good. I'd have considered the FSF's track record and
reputation good enough to allow it.
That's no longer the case, unfortunately.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: