Re: how about mutual compatibility between Linux's GPLv2 and GPLv3?

[Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>]

On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 03:00:30AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> I was here to dispell the lies that were being spread about GPLv3, the
> spirit and the goals of the GPL, as far as I understood them.  I knew
> from the start that it was an uphill battle, and that I wouldn't be
> able to convince those who distrusted the FSF so much that they would
> listen to anything that resembled an FSF discourse with an extremely
> high rejection level.  This was all expected.

News flash: almost no one except for you cares about the "spirit of
the GPL", and it was not on that basis that people decided that the
GPLv3 was an inferior license, FOR THE LINUX KERNEL.

> That I was perceived as pushing it is not surprising at all.  

So the fact that you keep talk about the general case, when in fact
the concern was about the specific case of the Linux kernel, certainly
DID make it seem like that you were pushing it.  THE GENERAL CASE IS
OUT OF SCOPE FOR THIS MAILING LIST.

And no, it's not a perception of "being forced", it's was a matter of
consuming huge amounts of bandwidth on a topic which was out-of-scope
for this mailing list.  And the only topic which was in scope (whether
or not GPLv3 was appropriat for the Linux kernel development
community) was one where you would keep slidng away from.

> I feel I have accomplished my goal: I've informed a lot of people
> about the GPL, about GPLv3, about Free Software and even about the
> FSFes.  Whether they make a decision for GPLv3, GPLv2, or more liberal
> Free Software licenses, is up to them.  Now, people who'd only been
> exposed to the prevailing views in this list can take something
> different into account, and make more-informed decisions.

Great.   So can we please END this thread?

Thank you.

						- Ted