Re: GPLv3 Position Statement

[Simon Oosthoek]

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.

If they choose to "upgrade" the GPL from v2 to this draft, they will 
never again get support from those who feel betrayed in their trust of 
the FSF in keeping the GPL to its original meaning in v2 (but not from 
its original intended meaning, so probably it would have been misplaced 
trust)

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.

Still, these are interesting times in free/open source software world ;-)

/Simon
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/