Garrett: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

Posted Jan 31, 2012 20:10 UTC (Tue) by landley (guest, #6789)
In reply to: Garrett: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement by karim
Parent article: Garrett: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

I was an enormous fan of GPLv2. Humongous fan. I spoke on panels extoling its virtues, and defending it from criticism:

http://sf.geekitude.com/content/pros-and-cons-gnu-general...

Then GPLv3 came out, and undermined GPLv2 like a sinkhole. I used to have a tagline on my emails, "GPLv3: as worthy a successor as the Phantom Meanace, as timely as Duke Nukem Forever, and as welcome as New Coke."

GPLv3 was a "han shot first" moment, showing that the original creator had suffered massive brain rot and come out with the Jar-Jar Binks of licenses. I spent YEARS unhappy about GPLv2 and the way it split the community.

The FSF pushing GPLv3 and FUD-ing GPLv2 goes to insane levels sometimes. Did you know they replaced the Binutils 2.17 tarball on their website with one that contains GPLv3 source files? Yup, they've RETROACTIVELY relicensed binutils 2.17, in a sneaky manner that requires examining the top of each source file to see what license is on each one.

My loyalty to GPLv2 eroded because the FSF _worked_ agianst it, but it's done. The GPL is no longer one thing, it's GPLv2 and AGPL and GPLv3 and none of them can share code. I'm not going to sit here and defend the old thing against moronic attempts to redo it by a creator who clearly lost his marbles along the way. GPLv2 was great, and I'm sad that it's no longer viable as a license for new projects, but I didn't do it.

And the revival of toybox is not creating demand, it's responding to it.

to post comments

Garrett: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

Posted Jan 31, 2012 21:32 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (1 responses)

Did you know they replaced the Binutils 2.17 tarball on their website with one that contains GPLv3 source files? Yup, they've RETROACTIVELY relicensed binutils 2.17, in a sneaky manner that requires examining the top of each source file to see what license is on each one.

You've been told this is wrong and pointed at links indicating just why it is wrong.

Either you are arguing in bad faith or you are just not paying attention. I don't know which and I don't much care.

Garrett: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

Posted Jan 31, 2012 23:11 UTC (Tue) by landley (guest, #6789) [Link]

I was pointed at links indicating that they knew they were doing it, I wasn't pointed at any links indicating that the new files in the tarball weren't GPLv3 when the notices on them say they are.

Are you claiming these new files are "mere aggregation"? The FSF is claiming that the old files weren't "complete source", and that they had to add GPLv3 files to make complete source, and that if you add GPLv3 files to a GPLv2 or later program the result is that the whole can only be distributed under the terms of GPLv3.

How is this interpretation wrong?

Rob

Garrett: The ongoing fight against GPL enforcement

Posted Feb 1, 2012 10:07 UTC (Wed) by robert_s (subscriber, #42402) [Link]

"I was an enormous fan of GPLv2"

Except you've argued again and again in this thread and others that it shouldn't be enforced.

Really, reading your arguments has just made me want to make a donation to the SFLC.