On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 21:52:58 +0000 Clint Adams wrote: > On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 11:31:55PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > For reasons I won't elaborate on here (they would drive us far away > > from the topic under discussion), I consider the GNU GPL v3 as a > > license with a broken copyleft mechanism (at least for some aspects). > > > > Hence, whenever I want to dodge these weaknesses, I license my works > > under the GNU GPL v2 only. > > I am not the only one, possibly for similar reasons. > > For reasons I won't bother explaining, the GNU (L)GPL v2 is a flawed > license. By licensing something as v2 or later, one allows those > flaws to propagate. By licensing something as v2 ONLY, you achieve > more than that: you lock those flaws in with no remedy other than > relicensing by the copyright holders, and you create a deliberate > incompatibility with anything under current or future versions of > the GNU (L)GPL. This harms our community. > > Therefore, if a side effect of licensing things under LGPLv3+ is > to help the v2-only crowd realize that their stubborn, antisocial > behavior is misguided, and perhaps inspire them to stop spreading > FUD, then I think we should embrace it. Don't you? Please note that your argument could be reversed, as in: === For reasons I won't bother explaining, the GNU (L)GPL v3 is a flawed license. By licensing something as v2 or later, one allows those flaws to propagate. By licensing something as v3 or later, you achieve more than that: you lock those flaws in with no remedy other than re-licensing by the copyright holders (until a hypothetical saner GNU GPL is published by the FSF, which won't happen soon, I am afraid), and you create a deliberate incompatibility with anything under the GNU GPL v2. This harms our community. Therefore, if a side effect of licensing things under GPL v2 only is to help the v3-or-later crowd realize that their stubborn, antisocial behavior is misguided, and perhaps inspire them to stop spreading FUD, then I think we should embrace it. Don't you? === Do you see the symmetry? You basically claim that a deliberate incompatibility with the GPLv2 should be created, because the GPLv2 is too weak a copyleft in some respects and because using the GPLv2 without the "or later" mechanism creates a deliberate incompatibility with the GPLv3. I acknowledge that the GPLv2 has some weaknesses that are cured by the GPLv3, but, at the same time, I think that the GPLv3 has other weaknesses (not present in the GPLv2) which undermine its copyleft mechanism. After participating in the public GPLv3 draft review process, and after seeing other harmful things done by the FSF (GFDL, AfferoGPL, ...), I stopped trusting the FSF to publish good licenses. Hence, whenever I want to avoid seeing my work mixed or incorporated into non-free works, I choose the GNU GPL v2 without the "or later" mechanism. Sorry, but it's not me, it's the FSF that harms our community, by publishing flawed licenses and by no longer deserving to be trusted about keeping its own promises (GPLv2, Section 9: "new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version"). All these problems will be fixed, when (and if) the FSF releases a new version of the GNU GPL (v4? v5? ...) able to cure the weaknesses (and the other minor flaws) of the GNU GPL v3, without introducing new flaws (the FSF also has to stop promoting the GFDL, the AfferoGPL, ...). In the meanwhile, what I was proposing was that the licensing of the Debian Open Use Logo should not create a deliberate incompatibility with either the GPLv2 or the GPLv3. On the other hand, you are saying that cutting the GPLv2 out is a good thing to do. Sorry, but I have to disagree... -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
Attachment:
pgpaYQKSHfrqX.pgp
Description: PGP signature