On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Bernd Petrovitsch <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mit, 2012-02-15 at 03:41 +0200, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Bernd Petrovitsch >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Son, 2012-02-12 at 01:26 +0200, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> >> On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Rich Felker <[email protected]> wrote: >> > [...] >> >> It doesn't matter why the GPL exists, it only matters why the >> >> copyright holders chose it. If they realize the GPL is doing a >> >> disservice to them, they might choose something else. >> > >> > But you cannot change the license of already released versions *and* you >> > need the agreement of all copyright holders to change the license. >> >> So? Licenses do change. It is not a pleasant process, in some projects >> more painful than others, but they do change if they must. > > No, licenses do not change on their own, but *people* change a license.
Yes... Licenses are not live beings =/ > *People* can change the license for new source code and tell all others. > You cannot rewrite history and change the license later on. Of course, nobody suggested otherwise. > And a license as such does not change itself. And there is a reason, why > some people do not choose the "automatic update" option as in "GPLv2 or > later" (though other would like to have it) - no one knows what's in the > next release. Nobody is saying licenses change by themselves. > Perhaps the interpretation of an existing license (text) changes or > needs to be clarified for certain situations (new ones or not so new > ones). Or some laws or court orders change it. > > But all this is driven by *people* and people have a reason. > So in each of these discussions, please think about who pushes for the > change and - even more important - who benefits from that change in what > way and who looses something - independent of any word games people play > and any presented reasoning. Developers. It's only the developers that choose the license in which they develop. > The latter one is usually just the sales stuff and the other 90% - the > drawbacks - of the implications are kept secret. Welcome to lobbyism and > politics as such ... Again, developers (copyright holders) are free to choose whatever license they want. If they don't like what you do with their code, and that's allowed by the GPL, they might change it. Why would they use a license that doesn't do what they want? >> > And that's what some (if not many) people motivates to work on GPL >> > software (and to not work with other licenses). >> >> As the GPLv3 vs GPLv2 divide demonstrates; not all people have the >> same expectations about what the GPL should do. > > But it is IMHO very clear what's the intention and spirit behind GPLv3 > and GPLv3 (if we ignore that some people always try to redefine words to > change some written text) and the wording as such cannot be changed. > > If the license doesn't fit you, take another one. Exactly. But that's not easy, it's much more efficient to just tell people to avoid busybox on products, the end result is the same; proxy company-wide enforcement is avoided. -- Felipe Contreras _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
