Re: GPLv2-only considered harmful [was Re: GnuTLS in Debian]
On Sat, Jan 04, 2014 at 05:07:29PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> This goes for GPLvX "or later", but also for other "or later" licenses,
> where they exist.
>
> I'm convinced that the GPLv2 is a free license, but I'm so far undecided
> on the GPLv3 (mainly because I've not read the license text in much
> detail myself yet since it's far too long and I just never had the time).
>
> How is that in any way antisocial?
Because licensing is a social activity and you're making it all about you.
I could go waste my time making up a license that addresses only the
things I care about. It wouldn't have an attribution requirement.
It would terminate on trademark-related legal action. It would thus
be incompatible with every other copyleft license out there.
This wouldn't just be a colossal waste of time, it would be antisocial
because any code under this license would be deliberately incompatible
with anything else FOR NO GOOD REASON.
I once licensed something under GPLv2-only because I was afraid of
what v3 might bring, but that turned out to be stupid and I'm glad
someone yelled at me to fix it early on, because it was incompatible
with v3+ FOR NO GOOD REASON.
Reply to: