Re: GPLv3 dispute solution - new open source license?

[Joshua David Williams <yurimxpxman.lkml@gmail.com>]

On 6/18/07, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:

> You probably don't want do design a license without involving a
> competent lawyer.  We don't expect lawyers to write kernel code, either.

True enough, and I realized this when I wrote my initial post, but it's not 
what I wrote so much as the concept. I haven't seen the idea come up in any 
threads, so I thought I'd throw it out there.

Open source and free software are clearly two different things, so it doesn't 
make sense that an open source project would use a free software license. The 
FSF has made it very clear that their objectives are very different from 
ours.

The GPLv2 is a great license, but it's not perfect. The FSF recognised several 
of the problems when they introduced the first public draft of v3. Since they 
are heading in an opposite direction from the open source community, I 
believe that we are now facing a clear dividing line between the two camps. 
We cannot cling to the fifteen year-old license forever, expecting to never 
be burnt.

If we can't adopt the GPLv3, it seems obvious to me that we need our own 
solution.

-- 
It's a commonly known fact that most intruders come in through Windows.