Gabriel Sechan wrote: > > Of course, should my other point occur and Congress change the law to break > GPLv2, then THAT is a problem Linux can't survive.
And congress can pass a law making GPLvX illegal. I don't see this as an issue, I see this as the chicken-little The Sky Is Falling noise- making. What is sub-optimal, as you point out, that the FSF wrote a license that is neither forward nor backward compatible. They, essentially, forked their own license. Code re-use is great. If you want code re-use, use the BSD 3-clause license. That grants you the largest audience. GNU LGPL comes next. Then comes the GNU GPL's. You never hear about problems with being BSD compatible, but you hear problems with things being GPL compatible. This is a real problem, and the current draft of the GPLv3 makes this only worse. Only the FSF can fix this. Knowing what I know of RMS, this breakage is Feature. There may be those that think that the FSF can do no wrong. However, I have seen firsthand what the GNU FDL has done. The FSF is not pure, it is not clean, and it has little apparent interest in fixing the *admitted* bugs in the GNU FDL. If there is an incompatibility between the GNU GPLv2 and GNU GPLv3, that is entirely on the FSF's head. This is not the fault of those that did not feel like extending future trust to the FSF. -john -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
