From: Austin Ziegler Date: 2006-04-05T23:50:24+09:00 Subject: Re: GPL v3 and Ruby License. On 4/4/06, Gregory Brown wrote:> I went to MIT for the Free Software Foundation Associate members> meeting last weekend. I asked Stallman the question of whether the> FSF planned to contact various individuals who were using dual> licenses and encourage them to participate in commenting on GPLv3. > He sort of yelled at me a lot. Big surprise. You might be able to> find the recordings of this online sometime soon. You might be surprised, but I'm not. Stallman is the FSF's worst enemyat this point. > I talked to some other FSF members, including Executive Director Peter> Brown, and their suggestion was to encourage community members to come> use the comment system, and that they'd consider more formal outreach> programs for the second draft. > So, here I am making a suggestion that maybe is based on a bit of> paranoia. We're already having enough of a hard time explaining the> disjunctive license of Ruby... it'll be a lot harder to explain if> some people start using GPLv3 and others stick with GPLv2 when the> final draft rolls around. > Should the ruby community get active in commenting on GPLv3 in hopes> of making it possible to switch the ruby license to use it (alongside> the current, more permissive terms of course), or should we be> focusing on making a Ruby license that stands on it's own, or should> we just jump this hurdle down the line when we get to it? My personal recommendation would be to change Ruby such that it islocked to the GNU GPL v2. I personally will be moving to change thosepieces of software that I have written and released under the GNU GPL sothat they are locked to v2. I see no benefit in participating in the GPLv3 system because Stallman isn't really interested in working withcommunity; he has already made his decisions and the only question ishow to word it so that it is made legal pretty much everywhere. I do not like most of what I have seen of the v3 draft and see it as oneof the worst possible directions that could be taken. I would *personally* prefer to see Ruby relicensed under something likethe MIT licence because I don't think that there's any merit to thedisjunctive licence support for the GNU GPL. -austin--Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com * Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca