Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 21:37:15 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Licensing

On 2014-10-15 19:51, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
> On 12.10.2014 05:02, magnum wrote:
>> On 2014-10-11 20:31, RB wrote:
>>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 12:30 PM, RB <aoz.syn@...il.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 12:08 PM, magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> "Please note that GNU GPL v3 is a different beast from v2, and we
>>>>> (like many
>>>>> others) consider it problematic."
>
> Sorry but why do we consider it problematic? Perhaps I missed the thread
> where it was discussed?

Yeah, right.

> I don't mean that GPLv3 is ideal but everybody has his own issues with
> it. Or rather everybody has his own idea which features of GPLv3 to
> consider as problems and which as improvements.
>
> But the main problem of GPLv3 in context of john is IMHO its
> GPLv2-incompatibility. This is not specific to GPLv3 in any way and is a
> problem with more-or-less any copyleft license.

OK. So it is problematic? I don't even (care to) understand the details. 
The reason I wanted to mention GPLv3 is I suspect many people would 
think GPLv3 is just as good or better than GPLv2. That's what I thought 
until the issue was brought up on this list.

>> Thanks, I changed to this text now. But I used
>> http://www.informationweek.com/the-controversy-over-gpl-3/d/d-id/1053031?
>> for
>> the link.
>
> IMHO this article is not a good reference for a number of reasons:
> - it's not purely technical and talks about some crap ("anti-capitalist"
> ethic, "who slept under his desk and couldn't find a real job");
> - it's outdated -- it discusses a draft and talks at length about Affero
> bit which didn't get into GPLv3 the proper in the end;
> - it doesn't stress that GPLv3 is incompatible with GPLv2.

I just needed a link so I googled something like "Torvalds GPLv3" and 
that article was among the first. To me it occured to be a "superset" 
with a broader discussion and including that Torvalds link. I confess to 
not reading it very closely at all. If it ended up being subjective BS, 
please suggest a better link.

> BTW it's not clear to me what you are trying say with this text in the
> wiki. Its paragraph is between the one about license for the core john
> and a one about licenses for contributions. So the text is supposed to
> answer the question of why john is not relicensed under GPLv3 or to
> prevent its use for contributions? It's not clear from the formulation
> of the text.

> Some nitpicking: the text int the wiki talks about GPLv3 being "more
> problematic", more than what, than GPLv2? GPLv2 is also problematic?

Please come with specific suggestions, or better, just change it. I 
don't really give a fuck and this is not what I'm here for.

magnum


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux - Powered by OpenVZ