Re: Why LGPLv3/CC-by-sa-v3.0 for the logo?
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?