Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- GPLv2 "was not worded with the same philosophy"

[Alexander Terekhov]

-----
DRM "Misunderstood"
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 29 2006 @ 12:09 AM EDT
I think one reason I hear why Linus is upset is the same reason that I
am - GPL 3 is fundamentally different from GPL 2. It is different
philosophically, even if the original intent of GPL 2 was closer to the
language of GPL 3 - it was not worded with the same philosophy. I don't
think anyone disagrees with this. And so now that they are taking the
same name and "upgrading" it, it feels like a bait and switch. Is it so
hard to name it different and not ruin GPL for those of us who bought
into it back when we liked what it said in v2? The license is being
forced down our throats as developers, not the hardware manufacturers.
The FSF is apparently trying to usurp our software, hoping to make v3
viral via contributions, dependencies, and ignorance the way Microsoft's
FUD always warned us it would - and I hate for them to be right! And if
they can change the license philosophically once, what prevents them
from doing it in the future, maybe after RMS is no longer involved? Will
people really be able to distinguish my GPL 2 software license from
"GPL" in general, with all the new baggage that name will carry with it
5, 10 years from now? I know a lot of people and companies that were
warming up to GPL 2 are going to right back to step 1 in not trusting
"free" software anymore thanks to 3. I really hate that I have to join
them.
-----

regards,
alexander.