Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org, Kevin Mark <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta
- From: Robert Millan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 21:00:32 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20070608190032.GA15019@aragorn>
- In-reply-to: <20070523145804.GC18705@pcpool00.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de>
- References: <20070522113023.GE22548@zoy.org> <email@example.com> <20070522131520.GG22548@zoy.org> <20070523090021.GA7331@feisty.myhome.westell.com> <20070523145804.GC18705@pcpool00.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de>
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 04:58:04PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Kevin Mark <firstname.lastname@example.org> [070523 11:00]:
> > Could someone make a page with GPLv2-only software, I'd be curious what
> > would be affected. Maybe the easiest way would be to dump and format a
> > page on the Wiki so that it could be commented upon?
> Given the current drafts for the GPLv3, I think GPLv2-only software
> will not go away. At least if that "everyone is allowed to make this
> non-free by combining with code under the Affero GPL, and you are not
> allowed to make this copyleft by forbidding that", I'm stronly
> considering making new software GPLv2 only in the future, too.
I doubt they did this intentionally. Can you ellaborate on it? Which phrase
in particular? Did you send your concerns as comments to the latest draft?
My spam trap is email@example.com. Note: this address is only intended
for spam harvesters. Writing to it will get you added to my black list.