Re: GPLv3 Position Statement

Lennart Sorensen
2006-09-28T13:55:38Z

On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 11:39:04PM -0500, Chase Venters wrote:
> This is really why I got upset when I saw all the crap in the press over the
> last few days. I think both sides have pissed the other off to the point that
> some of us are actively forgetting that we're just, as Eben once
> said, "singing slightly different lyrics to slightly different music, and
> it's dissonant, and it jars us..."
>
> Some amount of contention is naturally good, so long as it does not undermine
> the great ends both movements are achieving. When our flamewars spill out
> into the industry press, it's just likely to make both sides look crazy. I
> wish that most people who choose to take sides could see (and acknowledge!)
> the real value the other side has, even if they don't agree with the approach
> or phraseology. And I wish that more of us wouldn't pick sides; that we'd be
> those "Passionate Moderates" Linus just invented. But we do need loud voices!

I wonder if perhaps the solution should be that the GPLv3 draft should
be renamed to something else to allow RMS to create his new license that
does exactly what he wants it to do, without hijacking existing GPLv2
code using a license that in many people's opinion is NOT in the spirit
of the GPLv2 (which it could be argued overrides the "or later" part of
the license). The current GPLv3 draft may be in the spirit of what RMS
intended the GPLv2 to be, but it isn't in the spirit of what the GPLv2
says and does.

No one has a problem with people making new licenses. People have a
problem with people making new licenses and wanting to retroactively
replace existing licenses with a new and very different license.

Now what would be a good name for the GPLv3? GRLv1 (GNU Restricted
License v1) perhaps. :) That is essentially what it is doing.
Restricting what you can do with the code.

--
Len Sorensen