On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 23:54:15 +0100 Adam Borowski wrote: > On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 10:40:55PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > > o if you want to slightly enhance compatibility with existing > > licenses *and* you don't mind seeing your copyleft weakened by some > > clauses of the GNU GPL v3, *but* you don't trust the FSF to publish > > good future versions (v4, v5, ...) of the GNU GPL, then you may choose > > a "v2 or v3" approach > > I would call splitting the corpus of GPL software into incompatible parts > something really bad. Blame the FSF for publishing an unsatisfying GNU GPL v3. Right now, I would be recommending everyone to switch to "v3 or later", *if* the FSF had done a good job with the GPLv3 revision process. Unfortunately, this didn't happen: the GNU GPL v3 is a disappointing license, hence I don't recommend its adoption. > What about a somewhat less paranoid option: GPL2+noA > (GPL v2 or any higher, except for licenses from the Affero branch). Do you mean "GNU GPL v2 or later" + "the prohibition to link/combine with GNU AfferoGPL v3"? That would not work as intended, I think. If I receive a work under that licensing scheme, I can choose between the following options: A) GPL v2 + "prohibition to link/combine with GNU AfferoGPL v3" B) GPL v3 + "prohibition to link/combine with GNU AfferoGPL v3" C) GPL vX + "prohibition to link/combine with GNU AfferoGPL v3" where X is greater than 3 The GNU GPL v2 does not include any permission to link/combine with GNU AfferoGPL v3, hence option A is equivalent to GPL v2. On the other hand, the prohibition to link/combine with GNU AfferoGPL v3 is a non-permissive additional term with respect to GPL v3. It is not listed in Section 7, subclauses (a) through (f); hence it is a "further restriction" from the GPL v3 point of view, and it may be removed as per Section 7. As a consequence, option B is equivalent to GPL v3. Option C is not yet available, since the FSF has not yet published any GPL vX with X greater than 3. In conclusion, it seems that your approach is roughly equivalent to a "v2 or v3 or possibly[1] vX" approach. The compatibility with the GNU AfferoGPL v3 would *not* be avoided. [1] depending on how the prohibition will interact with future GPL versions > > You would leave a loophole, but that's FSF not Microsoft... The FSF should not be trusted *just because it's the FSF*. Something bad does not become less bad just because it comes from the FSF rather than from Microsoft. My usual disclaimers apply: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html New! Version 0.6 available! What? See for yourself! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgp1kv1cJimnI.pgp
Description: PGP signature