The main issue is license compatibility.
Solidarity with the FSF is not important to me. I myself
am beginning to think that solidarity with the FSF is harmful
to the free software movement -- but that issue will take a
bit of time and patience to explain.
The GPLv3 draft and Eben Moglen's talks on the topic
seem pretty good to me. I know it is potentially divisive,
especially re Linus -- but, y'know, there *are* other kernels....
-t
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
"Thomas" == Thomas Lord <address@hidden> writes:
Thomas> The V2-only wiki status is unfortunate and I'd add it to
Thomas> the list of what I think are Canonical's gratuitous `screw
Thomas> you' behavior visited upon the GNU Arch project.
Please stop this, Tom. The FSF's behavior with draft GPLv3 is just as
gratuitous and "screw you" from the point of view of many in the
community that Arch would like to serve, which AFAIK is much broader
than the GNU Project. I for one think it unlikely that I will use
GPLv3 for my own work, though I don't feel so strongly that I argue
against "GPLv2 or later" for projects where that is current practice.
Regarding which version of the GPL to use, would you be specific about
the advantages to the Wiki (other than the obvious == _expression_ of
solidarity with the FSF) to the GPLv3?
Do we expect people to add patented content? On the contrary, do you
realize that if we want to publicly oppose a patent related to SCM, we
arguably *cannot* post its content to the wiki under GPLv3 because of
the extremely broad explicit patent license required? (By contrast
the implicit license in GPLv2 presumably wouldn't extend to
documentation that isn't intended to be executed.)
Do we expect our wiki content to be used as part of DRM systems? How?
Do we expect people to post encrypted content without posting the keys?
Do we expect contributors to want to take advantage of the niggling
acknowledgement variations permitted by the GPLv3? Really?
Am I missing something else?
|