On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 11:31:55PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > For reasons I won't elaborate on here (they would drive us far away > from the topic under discussion), I consider the GNU GPL v3 as a > license with a broken copyleft mechanism (at least for some aspects). > > Hence, whenever I want to dodge these weaknesses, I license my works > under the GNU GPL v2 only. > I am not the only one, possibly for similar reasons.
For reasons I won't bother explaining, the GNU (L)GPL v2 is a flawed license. By licensing something as v2 or later, one allows those flaws to propagate. By licensing something as v2 ONLY, you achieve more than that: you lock those flaws in with no remedy other than relicensing by the copyright holders, and you create a deliberate incompatibility with anything under current or future versions of the GNU (L)GPL. This harms our community. Therefore, if a side effect of licensing things under LGPLv3+ is to help the v2-only crowd realize that their stubborn, antisocial behavior is misguided, and perhaps inspire them to stop spreading FUD, then I think we should embrace it. Don't you? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
