Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Front page to wiki now modifiable again

[Tom Lord]

    > From: Matthieu Moy <address@hidden>

    > Tom Lord <address@hidden> writes:

    > >     > From: Rob Weir <address@hidden>

    > >     > Do you have reason to believe that future revisions will be
    > >     > incompatible with the GNU GPL, version 2?

    > > Doesn't it seem virtually certain?

    > > V3 can either add or remove restrictions on copying, modification,
    > > redistribution, and use.  Neither adding or removing such restrictions
    > > is permitted by V2 itself.

    > GPL compatible doesn't mean that  GPL software can be relicenced under
    > this licence.  It means  you can make  a derived work  containing both
    > this licence and the GPL. 

    > The BSD  licence is GPL compatible,  and is less  restrictive than the
    > GPL. 

    > If GPL v3  looks like the BSD (which I'm sure  won't happen ;-), then,
    > GPL v3 will be compatible with GPL v2, removing some restrictions.


I suppose that you're right in a strange technical sense.  V3 could be
written as, for example, the version of the BSD license without the
obnoxious advertising clause.  As a result, there'd be no problem
mixing either V2+ code or V2-only code with V3 code.

However, all extant v2+ code would, by publishing such a v3, instantly
become non-copyleft code.  "http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html";
should give a sense of why, should v3 have that form, I'll be first in
line to join the class-action suit against the FSF seeking, among
other things, an immediate injunction declaring V3 invalid and
inoperative and an immediate revocation of the FSF's status as a
non-profit organization.

-t