5 ms·

“If you have software under GNU GPLv3 or later, relicense it to GPLv3-only”

16 points by thinkingemote 6y ago

viraptor 6y ago
I don't get the warning significance now. If there was no urgency while RMS was away, what changes now that people openly say he shouldn't come back?
- thinkingemote 6y ago
  Now? The author is seeing a possible coup of the FSF, as there are many corporations and individuals calling for the resignation of the entire board of the FSF, not just RMS. These organisations are more MIT-adjacent than hardline GPL The FSF controls the GPL license. If a coup happens then those in charge could create a GPLv4 with less freedoms. "GPLv3 or later" licenses would then have this GPLv4 applied to it. It's a theory bordering on a conspiracy and a big stretch to me, as in practice I cant see it happening but it is a warning that should be heard at least.
  - rurban 6y ago
    I don't believe they would dare to cripple the GPL, but they would certainly cripple the rest with COC's, word police ("main"), and similar harmful destruction. And the coup already happened.
Tabular-Iceberg 6y ago
What do they think the GPLv4 will be? A permissive license?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- enriquto 6y ago
  That's a grave danger. (Of course, adding newer restrictions to the GPLv4 would't change anything, as users could still be bound by the v3 thanks to the word "or". The real problem is removing conditions, such as the right of the users to get the source code).
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
pieno 6y ago
The risk of a coup is already covered to some extend in the GPL itself[0]. Article 14 which also governs the “or later” spec says: “Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.” It’s not crystal clear but you should be able to invoke this if GPLv4 would no longer be compatible with the basic idea of a “free, copyleft license” described in the preamble. You could then say that GPLv4 does not apply to anything licensed “GPLv3 or later” because GPLv4 is incompatible with that basic idea. Also, any “relicensing” would only apply to changes made after the license change. You cannot unilaterally revoke the original “GPLv3 or later” license on works that are already released under that license (see the term provision in article 2 of the GPL). [0] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt
hjek 6y ago
To add some context, the author, who is a Libreboot developer, is running a transgender support group[0]. This is interesting because a significant part of the accusations against RMS have been around transphobia[1] for refusing to use "they" for singular[2]. Hence she may have concerns about GPLv4 being more permissive, but it may be just as much about showing support for RMS as a person. [0]: https://vimuser.org/ https://vimuser.org/ [1]: or what RMS would probably call antitransism, https://stallman.org/antiglossary.html#phobia https://stallman.org/antiglossary.html#phobia [2]: https://stallman.org/antiglossary.html#they https://stallman.org/antiglossary.html#they
- ASalazarMX 6y ago
  > accusations against RMS have been around transphobia[1] for refusing to use "they" for singular Is this really all? On one hand, it's impressive how much cancel muscle the trans community has now, but in the other, I'm also against using they/them as a singular pronoun, it wrecks many phrases. It's even more jarring when you make an effort to appease them, and you find they have wife and children, and still reject gender.
  - Volundr 6y ago
    Having a wife and kids does not preclude being a non-binary gender, heck it doesn't even preclude being an ambiguous biological sex.
    - ASalazarMX 6y ago
      But surely being attracted to straight women implies more male/lesbian/bisexual gender than they want to admit.
      - Volundr 6y ago
        What? So are homosexual women "male" in your world? Gender is not defined by who you have sex with.
      - hjek 6y ago
enriquto 6y ago
Leah Rowe is probably the "highest level" hacker who is publicly on the pro-RMS camp. Even if that message seems a bit exaggerate, I would still take her a bit seriously.
rambojazz 6y ago
I don't understand, what is the message here? Who is she accusing of what? Who are the "bastards"? What is she expecting to come with v4?

“If you have software under GNU GPLv3 *or later*, relicense it to GPLv3-only”

16 points by thinkingemote 6y ago

I don't get the warning significance now. If there was no urgency while RMS was away, what changes now that people openly say he shouldn't come back?

thinkingemote 6y ago
Now? The author is seeing a possible coup of the FSF, as there are many corporations and individuals calling for the resignation of the entire board of the FSF, not just RMS. These organisations are more MIT-adjacent than hardline GPL The FSF controls the GPL license. If a coup happens then those in charge could create a GPLv4 with less freedoms. "GPLv3 or later" licenses would then have this GPLv4 applied to it. It's a theory bordering on a conspiracy and a big stretch to me, as in practice I cant see it happening but it is a warning that should be heard at least.
- rurban 6y ago
  I don't believe they would dare to cripple the GPL, but they would certainly cripple the rest with COC's, word police ("main"), and similar harmful destruction. And the coup already happened.

Tabular-Iceberg 6y ago

What do they think the GPLv4 will be? A permissive license?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
enriquto 6y ago
That's a grave danger. (Of course, adding newer restrictions to the GPLv4 would't change anything, as users could still be bound by the v3 thanks to the word "or". The real problem is removing conditions, such as the right of the users to get the source code).

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

pieno 6y ago

The risk of a coup is already covered to some extend in the GPL itself[0]. Article 14 which also governs the “or later” spec says: “Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.” It’s not crystal clear but you should be able to invoke this if GPLv4 would no longer be compatible with the basic idea of a “free, copyleft license” described in the preamble. You could then say that GPLv4 does not apply to anything licensed “GPLv3 or later” because GPLv4 is incompatible with that basic idea. Also, any “relicensing” would only apply to changes made after the license change. You cannot unilaterally revoke the original “GPLv3 or later” license on works that are already released under that license (see the term provision in article 2 of the GPL). [0] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt

hjek 6y ago

To add some context, the author, who is a Libreboot developer, is running a transgender support group[0]. This is interesting because a significant part of the accusations against RMS have been around transphobia[1] for refusing to use "they" for singular[2]. Hence she may have concerns about GPLv4 being more permissive, but it may be just as much about showing support for RMS as a person. [0]: https://vimuser.org/ https://vimuser.org/ [1]: or what RMS would probably call antitransism, https://stallman.org/antiglossary.html#phobia https://stallman.org/antiglossary.html#phobia [2]: https://stallman.org/antiglossary.html#they https://stallman.org/antiglossary.html#they

ASalazarMX 6y ago
> accusations against RMS have been around transphobia[1] for refusing to use "they" for singular Is this really all? On one hand, it's impressive how much cancel muscle the trans community has now, but in the other, I'm also against using they/them as a singular pronoun, it wrecks many phrases. It's even more jarring when you make an effort to appease them, and you find they have wife and children, and still reject gender.
- Volundr 6y ago
  Having a wife and kids does not preclude being a non-binary gender, heck it doesn't even preclude being an ambiguous biological sex.
  - ASalazarMX 6y ago
    But surely being attracted to straight women implies more male/lesbian/bisexual gender than they want to admit.
    - Volundr 6y ago
      What? So are homosexual women "male" in your world? Gender is not defined by who you have sex with.
    - hjek 6y ago

enriquto 6y ago

Leah Rowe is probably the "highest level" hacker who is publicly on the pro-RMS camp. Even if that message seems a bit exaggerate, I would still take her a bit seriously.

rambojazz 6y ago

I don't understand, what is the message here? Who is she accusing of what? Who are the "bastards"? What is she expecting to come with v4?