4 ms·

Richardfontana/GPL.next - Fork of GPL

14 points by iProject 14y ago

ibotty 14y ago
i wonder why this happens only now. richard fontana has been pretty open in his criticism for a while...
- davidddavidson 14y ago
  Because it was forked and rewritten BY Richard Fontana
  - ibotty 14y ago
    huh. i know. but why now?
rwmj 14y ago
Richard gave a talk which touched upon this at FOSDEM earlier this year: https://archive.fosdem.org/2012/schedule/event/the_decline_of_the_gpl.html https://archive.fosdem.org/2012/schedule/event/the_decline_o... (Sadly I cannot find the slides online)
StavrosK 14y ago
It doesn't say what it does anywhere that I can see. The readme concerns itself with how it's allowed and compatible with the GPL, but I can't know what it's for unless I read the entire license.
- ibotty 14y ago
  one important thing is clarification and removing leftovers from negotiations between multiple parties involved in the gpl3 license text.
morsch 14y ago
Wow, I think it's pretty outrageous to call a license that is not backed by the FSF GPL.next. His argument that GPL is a generic term doesn't convince me at all.
- morsch 14y ago
  The GitHub page linked is 404 now, I think he renamed the license to avoid any misunderstandings: https://github.com/richardfontana/Copyleft.next https://github.com/richardfontana/Copyleft.next
- sneak 14y ago
  https://github.com/richardfontana/GPL.next/issues/13 https://github.com/richardfontana/GPL.next/issues/13
PopaL 14y ago
What is the main difference between this and the original GPL ? I'm not a lawyer so I ask here, why I would use GPL.next instead of GPL ?
dfc 14y ago
Is anyone involved a lawyer? After reading the discussion that went into the removal of the acceptance clause I became a little worried.
- ibotty 14y ago
  yes. many persons involved are. (richard fontana is redhat's top lawyer.)
gioele 14y ago
Discussion thread on LWN (with the author, Richard Fontana): https://lwn.net/Articles/505589/ https://lwn.net/Articles/505589/
trotsky 14y ago
For those looking for some context, I found some slides: "The Decline of the GPL, and What To Do About It" Richard Fontana, Red Hat - Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit 2012 https://events.linuxfoundation.org/images/stories/pdf/lfcs2012_fontana.pdf https://events.linuxfoundation.org/images/stories/pdf/lfcs20...
hobin 14y ago
Totally serious question: isn't the GPL GPL'ed in some way?
- ibotty 14y ago
  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL
  - hobin 14y ago
    Ah, I see. Thank you. :)

14 points by iProject 14y ago

ibotty 14y ago

i wonder why this happens only now. richard fontana has been pretty open in his criticism for a while...

davidddavidson 14y ago
Because it was forked and rewritten BY Richard Fontana
- ibotty 14y ago
  huh. i know. but why now?

rwmj 14y ago

Richard gave a talk which touched upon this at FOSDEM earlier this year: https://archive.fosdem.org/2012/schedule/event/the_decline_of_the_gpl.html https://archive.fosdem.org/2012/schedule/event/the_decline_o... (Sadly I cannot find the slides online)

StavrosK 14y ago

It doesn't say what it does anywhere that I can see. The readme concerns itself with how it's allowed and compatible with the GPL, but I can't know what it's for unless I read the entire license.

ibotty 14y ago
one important thing is clarification and removing leftovers from negotiations between multiple parties involved in the gpl3 license text.

morsch 14y ago

Wow, I think it's pretty outrageous to call a license that is not backed by the FSF GPL.next. His argument that GPL is a generic term doesn't convince me at all.

morsch 14y ago
The GitHub page linked is 404 now, I think he renamed the license to avoid any misunderstandings: https://github.com/richardfontana/Copyleft.next https://github.com/richardfontana/Copyleft.next
sneak 14y ago
https://github.com/richardfontana/GPL.next/issues/13 https://github.com/richardfontana/GPL.next/issues/13

PopaL 14y ago

What is the main difference between this and the original GPL ? I'm not a lawyer so I ask here, why I would use GPL.next instead of GPL ?

dfc 14y ago

Is anyone involved a lawyer? After reading the discussion that went into the removal of the acceptance clause I became a little worried.

ibotty 14y ago
yes. many persons involved are. (richard fontana is redhat's top lawyer.)

gioele 14y ago

Discussion thread on LWN (with the author, Richard Fontana): https://lwn.net/Articles/505589/ https://lwn.net/Articles/505589/

trotsky 14y ago

For those looking for some context, I found some slides: "The Decline of the GPL, and What To Do About It" Richard Fontana, Red Hat - Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit 2012 https://events.linuxfoundation.org/images/stories/pdf/lfcs2012_fontana.pdf https://events.linuxfoundation.org/images/stories/pdf/lfcs20...

hobin 14y ago

Totally serious question: isn't the GPL GPL'ed in some way?

ibotty 14y ago
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL
- hobin 14y ago
  Ah, I see. Thank you. :)