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 - it's outdated -- it discusses a draft and talks at length about Affero 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
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.