Message-ID: <20060928150726.GB1474@DervishD>
Date:	Thu, 28 Sep 2006 17:07:26 +0200
From:	DervishD <lkml@...vishd.net>
To:	Simon Oosthoek <simon.oosthoek@...wmc.nl>
Cc:	Lennart Sorensen <lsorense@...lub.uwaterloo.ca>,
	Chase Venters <chase.venters@...entec.com>,
	Sergey Panov <sipan@...an.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
	Patrick McFarland <diablod3@...il.com>,
	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...eleye.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: GPLv3 Position Statement

    Hi Simon :)

 * Simon Oosthoek <simon.oosthoek@...wmc.nl> dixit:
> DervishD wrote:
> >    Probably the renaming is just common sense and will avoid ALL
> >problems. People like me are concerned only because all GPLv2 that
> >doesn't state otherwise will be released automagically under GPLv3 as
> >soon as the latest draft is made the official version. Otherwise, I
> >wouldn't give a hump about any new license until I have the time to
> >read it and see if I like it.
> 
> I've already commented on the fsf site about this in the same way,
> and I wasn't the first one. The only problem with this, from the
> FSF p.o.v. is when this draft will not be automatically applied to
> all those pieces of code licensed under "v2 or any later", the
> power of their political message will be reduced to those choosing
> freely to convert to the new license. I have no idea how many that
> would be, but those that do would actually support their political
> agenda, which would be much better from the "free" perspective.

    Probably I'm wrong here, but if the renaming took place, much
more people will probably convert to the new license if given the
change of choosing. I mean, we humans tend to do exactly the opposite
of what we are forced to do...

    OTOH, if the renaming takes place and almost nobody changes to
GPLv3, that's a thing to think profoundly about.

> So who would get "hurt" by this? People who licensed their code
> under the GPLv2 or later, naively thinking that the license text
> was the intended goal of the license.

    That's what I think, too. Myself, I've re-released some of my
projects just in case I dislike the GPLv3 because I don't want my
license to be converted by the recipients of my code (they can pick
GPLv3 if they want). Probably I will convert to GPLv3, who knows, but
not because I lazily copied a disclaimer that says "any later
version", if I do a relicensing I'll do it on purpose. When I chose
GPLv2 I thought that future versions will correct minor legalese,
wording or things like that, but I never thought about the DRM thing.
While I don't like "tivoization", I'm not against DRM as a
technology, and the same can be applied to other chunks of the new
GPLv3 license draft.
 
> Still, these are interesting times in free/open source software
> world ;-)

    Unfortunately ;) I think that finally people will make a good
deal about all this fuss :)) And if they don't, I'm not worried at
all for the future of FOSS, because if a fork must be produced, it
will be. Killing FOSS is very hard ;)

    Raúl Núñez de Arenas Coronado

-- 
Linux Registered User 88736 | http://www.dervishd.net
It's my PC and I'll cry if I want to... RAmen!
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists