On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 11:54:47AM -0500, Martin Blais wrote: > > In a sense, you have more freedom with GPLv2 only. > > I also don't want to impose my views on others. > > I don't follow. > Here's the rub: My understanding so far in the process (and I'm still learning about this) is that assuming the clauses implicit in the GPLv2+ is akin to assuming a deeper part in the FSF's political ideology. I'm not against the FSF's mission, but in general I'm not really interested in being part of a movement, a club, etc. I just write code and I share it with others, it's very simple. From users I get back bug reports, documentation fixes, a forum to debate ideas and questions help in finding interesting solutions to problems I have to solve, and of course, the occasional patch. I'm much more interested in the technical aspects of problem-solving than in any kind of mission. All I require if my code is used and modifications to the software are made, is that they be shared back with me, and by extension, with all others. I think it's a fair arrangement and a simple idea. Linus expresses this very well and succinctly in his response to the questioner and I feel the same way. I'm not sure the GPL is the best way to implement that, but I always thought it was. Now I'm not so sure anymore. I have to think about this some more; unfortunately, I have too little time to devote to understanding all the ramifications involved; most of my free time has to be spent on machine learning for a while. I'll go read some more and come back later. GPL2+ means "GPL2 OR any later version". The logical disjunction in > there is arbitrated by who receives the code, that is, your users. So > GPL2+ gives to your users *all* the freedoms of GPL2 *plus* the > alternative of opting for GPL3. > > If you don't want to impose your views on others, GPL2+ is really the > only right choice here. > That wouldn't work: If someone decides to make a copy as GPLv3, I wouldn't be take the changes back into my original v2+ version. Linus specifically addresses that issue in his response. > If, on the other hand, you want to make a political statement on why > GPL3 is a bad license (which is Linus' case) than you could want to go > for "GPL2 only", but that is precisely imposing your views on others. > > Plus, on the pragmatic side, "GPL2 only" will inhibit both you and your > users to mix GPL3 code with the Beancount code base. Linus doesn't care > about this aspect because the Linux kernel is so important in the > ecosystem that they have the de facto power to *force* others to > relicense as GPL2-compatible just for being included in Linux. I doubt > that this is currently the case for Beancount, although I do wish you > that level of success :-) > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Beancount" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/CAK21%2BhNZHmOF5c4n6Z75tW661D2juALU%2BKaND%2BDiW0-QnsgNmA%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
