From: Bob Gustafson Date: 2006-04-06T01:43:41+09:00 Subject: Re: GPL v3 and Ruby License. --------------030500090600030207030406 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Relative to the v2 vs v3 discussion, you might have a look at the latest Linux Journal (May 2006). On page 48, Doc Searls extracts (with commentary) portions of the Linux-Kernel Mailing List between January 25, 2006 and February 2, 2006 where Linus Torvalds weighs in against his use of anything other than v2 for the Linux kernel. I guess it depends on what you want to allow to happen in the future. Having a 'v2 or later' clause in a contract does seem to open the barn door to lots of possibilities. Bob G Gregory Brown wrote: >On 4/5/06, Austin Ziegler wrote: > > >>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 enemy >>at this point. >> >> > >That was sarcasm. Though, I don't necessarily agree he is the FSF >worst enemy, i did lobby heavily for more 'practical' community >outreach at this past meeting. Stallman has a function to serve as a >cultural icon, and much less as a pragmatic leader. I am not sure if >you have met him or been to any FSF meetings, but that is really >apparent in person. > > > >>>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 is >>locked to the GNU GPL v2. I personally will be moving to change those >>pieces of software that I have written and released under the GNU GPL so >>that they are locked to v2. >> >> > >I was thinking about and getting paranoid about the "or any later >version" clause you see in most GPLed softwares terms. This was >proposed as a 'fix' by the FSF, but I see it as a back door. > > > >>I see no benefit in participating in the GPL >>v3 system because Stallman isn't really interested in working with >>community; he has already made his decisions and the only question is >>how to word it so that it is made legal pretty much everywhere. >> >> > >Yes, I complained that it seems like a lot happens behind closed doors >at the FSF and then they pop out with their decision and ask for >critique after the fact. After my discussion with Peter Brown, he >mentioned that they certainly had room to make some changes in the >process for the second draft, whether they do or not is yet to be >seen. Still, I think if a few of us knock at their door and let them >know what we're thinking, they might consider it a bit more seriously. > > > >>I do not like most of what I have seen of the v3 draft and see it as one >>of the worst possible directions that could be taken. >> >> > >What are your specific gripes? I was honestly ambivalent to slightly >annoyed about the DRM clauses until I heard the rationale at their >meeting, and I was strongly convinced that the new DRM protection is A >Good Thing. > >Also, they are working on ensuring compatibility with the Apache >license, which sounds good too. The patent threat is supposedly going >to be softened too. > >So what bad parts am I missing? > > > >>I would *personally* prefer to see Ruby relicensed under something like >>the MIT licence because I don't think that there's any merit to the >>disjunctive licence support for the GNU GPL. >> >> > >That's a broad stroke. Some people would like to retain copyleft. >Placing it under the MIT license would prevent that. Which of course, >some would call a good thing, but it would make people like me sad. >Still, I do think that Ruby might benefit from a single license, maybe >with a weak copyleft such as that of the LGPL (something in that >spirit) > > --------------030500090600030207030406--