User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

The next GPL: Why it's being shaped on GitHub (InfoWorld)

The next GPL: Why it's being shaped on GitHub (InfoWorld)

Posted Jul 6, 2012 19:21 UTC (Fri) by karim (subscriber, #114)
Parent article: The next GPL: Why it's being shaped on GitHub (InfoWorld)

Maybe I'm just old school, but I preferred a world where there was only GPLv2.


(Log in to post comments)

The next GPL: Why it's being shaped on GitHub (InfoWorld)

Posted Jul 6, 2012 22:29 UTC (Fri) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link]

Same here. It covered 99% of the problems, and that's good enough for me. Sure there were some things for which GPLv3 was an improvement, but I would rather they had been covered by separate licenses rather than try to make the GPL handle everything and thus handle nothing well.

The next GPL: Why it's being shaped on GitHub (InfoWorld)

Posted Jul 8, 2012 17:44 UTC (Sun) by BeS (subscriber, #43108) [Link]

>It covered 99% of the problems, and that's good enough for me. Sure there were some things for which GPLv3 was an improvement, but I would rather they had been covered by separate licenses

You mean such "minor" improvements like taking care of international law and not being US-law centric. Or increasing license compatibility?

For me GPLv3 is a clear win and I still wonder what GPL.next actually want to fix and if the author really think that this is worth license scattering?
I would think we have far more than enough free software license ranging from really simple non-protective licenses over weak-protective licenses to strong-protective licenses. Additionally you can get all of them with or without additional software patent clause. Where is the actual need for yet another license aka GPL.next?


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds