4 ms·
>I have several developer friends who, reasonably, didn't want to make a GPLv2 project "or later versions", as they didn't know what those later versions would
by davexunit 10y ago
>I have several developer friends who, reasonably, didn't want to make a GPLv2 project "or later versions", as they didn't know what those later versions would be, the FSF could produce almost anything.
The GPL license text explicitly addresses this concern. The FSF cannot make a GPLv4 that removes one of the 4 freedoms, for example.
- anon1385 10y agoWhich is unfortunate because it means it's impossible to create a future version of the GPL that actually protects the rights of users in the modern world. GPLv4 should really be based on the AGPL, but that would violate freedom zero. The restrictions in the GPL are becoming increasingly pointless. For a large section of the computing industry the GPL is functionally identical to the liberal BSD style licences because the program will never be "distributed", only made available over a network.
- maxlybbert 10y agoThe FSF has spent decades now promising that future versions of the GPL and related licenses would be in the same spirit as existing versions. But that promise depends on their definition of "in the same spirit," which is nebulous.
- anon1385 10y ago>But that promise depends on their definition of "in the same spirit," which is nebulous. Yes, very famously Linus Torvalds felt that GPLv3 was not in the same spirit as GPLv2. He described it as "a violation of everything version 2 stood for". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU