The rise of copyright trolls
The rise of copyright trolls
Posted May 22, 2017 7:43 UTC (Mon) by ras (subscriber, #33059)In reply to: The rise of copyright trolls by armijn
Parent article: The rise of copyright trolls
Others have commented how this is a GPL v2 problem mostly fixed by GPL v3. IMO GPL v3 is a would be a truly worthy successor on GPL v2, if it weren't "Installation Information" brain fart that renders ended up rendering it incompatible with the way most software is distributed nowadays (app stores). (I give Moglen credit for the beauty and clarity of the writing in GPL v3, but as one of the great intellects behind it he must shoulder a fair portion of the blame for this mistake. I'm sure it's the main reason for it's poor uptake to date.)
But there is a fix patch for GPL v3. You can neuter that rule. I am no lawyer so so I pinched this para from a fsf lawyers blog post, where he praised it (or maybe didn't criticise it - which I took as praise):
> The copyright holders grant you an additional permission under Section 7 of the GNU Affero General Public License, version 3, exempting you from the requirement in Section 6 of the GNU General Public License, version 3, to accompany Corresponding Source with Installation Information for the Program or any work based on the Program. You are still required to comply with all other Section 6 requirements to provide Corresponding Source.
Add that little snippet, and you have an excellent successor for GPL V2. I wish more people would do it because GPL v3 is so much better than GPL v2 in so many ways.
Posted May 22, 2017 8:16 UTC (Mon)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted May 23, 2017 14:40 UTC (Tue)
by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
[Link]
The rise of copyright trolls
You're joking, right?
The rise of copyright trolls
