Re: GnuTLS in Debian
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 10:43:54PM +0000, Clint Adams wrote:
[snip]
> GPLv2-only folks should be made to see how their antisocial
> behavior is harming everyone. I think this is a delightful
> situation for them to be in.
>
> Plenty of other licenses have an "or later" baked in and nobody
> whines about this at all. I've heard plenty of people fear that
> horrible things will happen with Creative Commons leadership,
> yet no one is trying to redline "later" from CC-BY-SA.
>
> But since the GPL allows it, people think it's somehow reasonable
> to be v2-only. It is not. It has led to all manner of problems,
> and for what? People enjoying Tivoization? Those people should
> be punched in the face. Fear of the FSF making a GPLv4 that's
> the text of Apache 2.0? Oh no, the sky is falling.
As one of the "GPL v2 only" proponents, I take affront. I choose to
license what little software I release as GPL v2 only because I do not
consider the GPL v3 to have what attracted me to use the GPL v2 in the
first place.
Relicensing libraries that have long been GPL v2 (or later) or LGPL v2.1
(or later) to (L)GPL v3 (or later) is, if anything, very antisocial,
since it locks out users of GPL v2 (only) software and forces the GPL v3
interpretation onto GPL v2 (or later) software.
But by all means, go on and punch me in the face...
Regards: David Weinehall
--
/) David Weinehall <tao@debian.org> /) Rime on my window (\
// ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ // Diamond-white roses of fire //
\) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Beautiful hoar-frost (/
Reply to: