"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 appea

"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.