3 ms·

> This is fundamentally wrong. Would you provide a point-by-point rebuttal? If not, would you at least provide some evidence of your position that my post is "

> This is fundamentally wrong. Would you provide a point-by-point rebuttal? If not, would you at least provide some evidence of your position that my post is "fundamentally wrong"? > I don't care if you like GPLv2 or not, but this is clearly showing you can't read or haven't read it. I have read GPLv1, GPLv2, GPLv3, aGPLv3, the X.ORG license, all forms of the BSD license, the appache license, several versions of the Mozilla License, amongst others. Please refrain from personal insults ("clearly showing you can't read") as well. > Its not about the user keeping his code under GPL2, My argument is that the FSF will probably not grant anybody privileges with the existing code that I don't like. Even once a new version of the GPL is released, other contributors will have to contribute under a version of the GPL. If the best versions are only under a later version of the GPL, maybe I will switch to GPLv4. > its about other parties being required to keep their changes under GPL2 and accessible. So it seems that you are worried that future contributors will release their contributioins only under the "later" version of the GPL and these new contributions will thus not be compatible with the older version of the GPL. This definitely could happen. However, many projects already dual license under GPLv2or3 so I don't see this as much of a concern. Sure we are adding GPLv2,3,orLater but these issues already exist and already don't cause too great an issue (in my opinion).

athrowaway3z 6y ago
"fundamentally wrong" and "you cant read" are a poor choice of words in retrospect and i should have used "Fundamentally misrepresents the issue" and "you appear to not understand why GPLv2 exists". > Please refrain from personal insults ("clearly showing you can't read") as well. I think the issue stems from: > "I don't think it is near as big a deal as you make it out to be." It is ambiguous weather you are "not sure about your logic", or if you are "not sure about Blikkentrekker logic". I took it to mean the latter. This puts your comment in a very bad light and set me off because it fails to acknowledge the issue Blikkentrekker is raising. > "While you are granting the FSF the ability to relicense your code, they only have the ability to re-license your existing code" A developer chooses the GPLv2 in part to what it does to _future_ code. `I provide this for free and we are all required to contribute future improvements for free, no-take-backsies`. >"If the FSF releases GPLv3 and it is CC0" is among the worse case scenario's for a developer that chooses GPLv2. It invalidates their choice and leaves only `I provide this for free` and is the core of the issue at hand. > My argument is that the FSF will probably not grant anybody privileges with the existing code that I don't like. And this is a perfectly fine counter. Its a matter of if you think the risk is worth it.

athrowaway3z 6y ago

"fundamentally wrong" and "you cant read" are a poor choice of words in retrospect and i should have used "Fundamentally misrepresents the issue" and "you appear to not understand why GPLv2 exists". > Please refrain from personal insults ("clearly showing you can't read") as well. I think the issue stems from: > "I don't think it is near as big a deal as you make it out to be." It is ambiguous weather you are "not sure about your logic", or if you are "not sure about Blikkentrekker logic". I took it to mean the latter. This puts your comment in a very bad light and set me off because it fails to acknowledge the issue Blikkentrekker is raising. > "While you are granting the FSF the ability to relicense your code, they only have the ability to re-license your existing code" A developer chooses the GPLv2 in part to what it does to _future_ code. `I provide this for free and we are all required to contribute future improvements for free, no-take-backsies`. >"If the FSF releases GPLv3 and it is CC0" is among the worse case scenario's for a developer that chooses GPLv2. It invalidates their choice and leaves only `I provide this for free` and is the core of the issue at hand. > My argument is that the FSF will probably not grant anybody privileges with the existing code that I don't like. And this is a perfectly fine counter. Its a matter of if you think the risk is worth it.