[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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?

Reply to: