[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 21:51:25 +0400
From: Alexander Cherepanov <cherepan@...me.ru>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Licensing
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?
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.
>>> Please note that GNU GPL version 3 differs significantly in both
>>> intent and outcome than version 2. As many others do [link Torvalds'
>>> sentiment], the John The Ripper development team considers it more
>>> problematic and prefers that it not be used.
>>
>> Yikes, that should be "from version 2" in the first sentence.
>>
>
> 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- it's outdated -- it discusses a draft and talks at length about Affero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.
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?
--
Alexander Cherepanov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
