On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Bernie Innocenti <ber...@sugarlabs.org> wrote: > Authors can express their intentions through a license. If you didn't > want your code to be redistributed under a later versions of the GPL, > then why didn't you distribute as GPLv2-only?
On a personal note here... programmers that liked GPLv2 due to its share-and-share-alike quid-pro-quo (like me, perhaps Scott too) trusted FSF for have future versions be "bugfix" versions. So I've also published GPLv2 bits and now I wish I hadn't. Some things in v3 are "bugfixes" -- the license compatibility, the patent wording (though it could scare some corporations that do hold patents). But the anti-tivoization clause changes the social contract significantly -- it moves towards a new territory that is problematic. I sure wish that GPLv3 was limited to those bugfixes, and the anti-tivo wording was segregatd to a new license; a bit like some clauses were split off to the Affero-GPL. > To me, this seems like the GPv3 has a long list of *practical* > advantages over the GPLv2: None of those seem interesting to Sugar. > A clearer patent license, > no ambiguities for distributors Nice, but GPLv2 is well understood by now. > better compatibility with other licenses, A high-profile, well-liked project like Sugar never has problem to get a dual-license grant from any incompat license. I've requested -- and obtained -- such dual-licenses from many (PHP-licensed) projects that we wanted to include in Moodle (GPLv2, and not as high profile as Sugar). > anti-tivoization This is rather problematic. While it doesn't affect OLPC/bitfrost, it can affect situations where I'd like to see Sugar in use. For example a well-setup thin-client / terminal server (like SkoleLinux/DebianEdu) may lockdown X so that .xsession is ignored. > protection from the DMCA Not relevant. Sugar ain't mplayer. > easier path to return into compliance for accidental > violations... Nice but... was that ever a problem? There's ample "best practice" around accidental violations. It doesn't change anything. So my questions are - What's the upside? - At what point do we say "hey, this has scant upside, and negative controversy around it, let's spend our time in productive things instead"? cheers, m -- martin.langh...@gmail.com mar...@laptop.org -- Software Architect - OLPC - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff _______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep