Just a question about the GPLv3

Posted Sep 26, 2006 5:44 UTC (Tue) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link]

Eben Moglen has emphasized many times something that I feel is an
important fact to invoke at this juncture. The drafting process of the
GPLv3 means that the Free Software Foundation is currently engaged in
making decisions about a license that will lay the ground rules for
future dealings in copyleft. The license impacts not only garage hackers
in Pakistan but multi-national corporations with billions of dollars of
interest in free software.

One of the aims of GPLv3 is to have a little additional flexibility.
There are some people who expected this license to enforce redistribution
of modifications in the case of web services; however, many believe that
would go too far. The FSF's answer to this has been to default to the
conservative case while allowing a GPLv3 user to individually decide this
matter for themselves.

Posted Sep 26, 2006 6:02 UTC (Tue) by pynm0001 (guest, #18379) [Link]

Well, it is FUD though. Your argument that having a feature of GPLv3
which is optional will become standard because some individuals will use
smacks of the whole GPL-as-cancer argument that used to be trumpeted by
Microsoft.

If a project doesn't want to use that feature of the GPL, then they
won't. Developers who don't abide by the license in use by the project
will not be allowed to contribute code, just as with any other open
source project. What's so hard to understand?

When I put code in kdelibs, it's put in as LGPL or less restrictive in
order to match the existing license. I don't get to cherry pick my
terms. If I tried to do so the code would be reverted, and rightfully
so.

Posted Sep 26, 2006 7:22 UTC (Tue) by Los__D (subscriber, #15263) [Link]

But it is, you make it sound like it's impossible to avoid, and it definitely isn't...