[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, 20 Sep 2012 21:52:58 +0000 Clint Adams wrote:

> 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?

Please note that your argument could be reversed, as in:

===
For reasons I won't bother explaining, the GNU (L)GPL v3 is a flawed
license. By licensing something as v2 or later, one allows those
flaws to propagate. By licensing something as v3 or later, you achieve
more than that: you lock those flaws in with no remedy other than
re-licensing by the copyright holders (until a hypothetical saner GNU
GPL is published by the FSF, which won't happen soon, I am afraid),
and you create a deliberate incompatibility with anything under the GNU
GPL v2. This harms our community.

Therefore, if a side effect of licensing things under GPL v2 only is
to help the v3-or-later 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?
===

Do you see the symmetry?

You basically claim that a deliberate incompatibility with the GPLv2
should be created, because the GPLv2 is too weak a copyleft in some
respects and because using the GPLv2 without the "or later" mechanism
creates a deliberate incompatibility with the GPLv3. 

I acknowledge that the GPLv2 has some weaknesses that are cured by the
GPLv3, but, at the same time, I think that the GPLv3 has other
weaknesses (not present in the GPLv2) which undermine its copyleft
mechanism.

After participating in the public GPLv3 draft review process, and after
seeing other harmful things done by the FSF (GFDL, AfferoGPL, ...),
I stopped trusting the FSF to publish good licenses.

Hence, whenever I want to avoid seeing my work mixed or incorporated
into non-free works, I choose the GNU GPL v2 without the "or later"
mechanism.
Sorry, but it's not me, it's the FSF that harms our community, by
publishing flawed licenses and by no longer deserving to be trusted
about keeping its own promises (GPLv2, Section 9: "new versions will be
similar in spirit to the present version").

All these problems will be fixed, when (and if) the FSF releases a
new version of the GNU GPL (v4? v5? ...) able to cure the weaknesses
(and the other minor flaws) of the GNU GPL v3, without introducing new
flaws (the FSF also has to stop promoting the GFDL, the AfferoGPL, ...).


In the meanwhile, what I was proposing was that the licensing of the
Debian Open Use Logo should not create a deliberate incompatibility
with either the GPLv2 or the GPLv3.
On the other hand, you are saying that cutting the GPLv2 out is a good
thing to do. Sorry, but I have to disagree...



-- 
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt
 New GnuPG key, see the transition document!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE

Attachment: pgpaYQKSHfrqX.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: