Am Dienstag 19 Juni 2007 04:46 schrieb Alexandre Oliva:
No. Credible licenses should be simple like physical laws. Newton's law
is expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. That's why it's
still valid, and you still learn it at school although meanwhile people
know that there are limitations to it.
If you come up with a new version of a license every year, you will only
weaken it. Please note that quantum mechanics is _not_ such a hole-plugging
addition to Newton's law. It's a new simple physical law, expressed in terms
of a single simple mathematical equation that contains the old law as a
border case. If that were not the case, it would have never been accepted.
If you want a GPLv3, please make it simple and make it contain GPLv2 as
a border case. The current draft isn't like that.
No. GPLv2 is a simple set of rights and restrictions that's easy to
understand and therefore accepted by many courts all over the world.
I cannot see any danger for the code I put under it, at least none
that would be mitigated by GPLv3.
The best way to prevent that is to make the license simple and easy to
follow. If many important open source software developers have problems
with the wording of a license, lawyers and judges will have them, too.
Ah, now I get the point. Yes, that's one in favor of a complicated and
confusing license. You can lengthen court proceedings until copyright
expires...
I'm neither in a corner nor do I feel the need for a different license.
I've got some code in the kernel, and I've got it under GPLv2, and I'm
happy with it. It's the FSF that thinks I should see myself in a corner.
Kernel programmers are short-sighted? What kind of arrogance is that?
You know pretty well that Linus clearly said he would change the license
when _he_ thinks it's needed. The point is that _you_ want him to change
the license to support _your_ political ideas.
I partly read that "recent huge thread". Linus elaborated his point of
view in detail, and I very much share his opinion.
Hans
-
