| |||||||||||||
FOSDEM: Richard Fontana on copyleft-nextFOSDEM: Richard Fontana on copyleft-nextPosted Feb 14, 2013 17:58 UTC (Thu) by jra (subscriber, #55261)Parent article: FOSDEM: Richard Fontana on copyleft-next
Good summary on why creating a new license is a bad idea. It is still valid today.
http://google-opensource.blogspot.com/2008/05/standing-ag...
At this point in time inventing new licenses is just an exercise in vanity, and simply serves to fragment the already limited resources we have to create more Free Software.
(Log in to post comments)
nevertheless, I think that this is a good effort Posted Feb 14, 2013 18:50 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] The FSF's effort to produce GPLv3 was impressive in many ways, but in the end I consider it a failure, because it split the developer community, by trying and failing to accomplish things with licenses that just can't be done (like stop DRM: had Linus gone along with GPLv3 the device makers would simply have forked the kernel at that point). One consequence of that failure is that more projects are choosing weak copyleft or BSD-style licenses.Having a copyleft license that is GPL2 and GPL3-compatible, that is substantially simpler than GPL3, and that isn't encumbered with unnecessary rhetoric, would be a very good thing.
FOSDEM: Richard Fontana on copyleft-next Posted Feb 23, 2013 14:36 UTC (Sat) by SEMW (guest, #52697) [Link]
The arguments in that blog post are about the difficulties of combining code under different and incompatible licenses. But clause 4 in copyleft-next allows relicensing to arbitrary GPL versions, which solved those problems:
49 You may additionally license the Derived Work under any version of the
So code licensed under this license is strictly more compatible than code licensed under 'any version of the GPL' -- and *significantly* more compatible than code licensed under GPLv3, which is what that blog post recommends to use if you want a copyleft license.
|
|||||||||||||