5 ms·

> No, by technicality of the licenses ... This teacup tempest is entirely of GNU's own making. It's nobody else's fault that their licenses are so onerous that

> No, by technicality of the licenses ... This teacup tempest is entirely of GNU's own making. It's nobody else's fault that their licenses are so onerous that they can't even keep them compatible with later revisions they themselves produce.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
dllthomas 13y ago
This is bullshit rhetorical sophistry, and I'm pretty sure you know it. Choosing an incompatible license is the fault of the person who chose the license. The FSF made a mistake in not building "... or any later version" into the GPLv2; they acknowledge this. They've been recommending for some time - since long before the start of the Git project - that projects interested in being GPLv2 compatible include "... or any later version." Imagine it was a piece of software with a bug. There's a patched version, it's been broadly announced that there was a bug and there is a fix. You ignore that and use the buggy version. Whose fault is it when you trip over the bug? Claiming it is "entirely of [the programmer]'s own making" is absurd.
- teacup50 13y ago
  > This is bullshit rhetorical sophistry, and I'm pretty sure you know it. No, I don't know it. The GNU's license absolutism is what got them into this mess in the first place. It's inherent in their aims. > Imagine it was a piece of software with a bug. Imagine that it's a piece of software with a new UX direction not everyone agrees with.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    "No, I don't know it. The GNU's license absolutism is what got them into this mess in the first place. It's inherent in their aims." Dismantling of copyright and a replacement with a requirement ensuring the freedoms the FSF cares about would thrill them, and not produce this license-incompatibility mess. It is plain, therefore, that it is not at all inherent to their aims. It may be inherent to this particular strategy - but again, license compatibility is something they've been looking at explicitly since making the mistake with GPLv2. "Imagine that it's a piece of software with a new UX direction not everyone agrees with." If the criticism was "They did not use GPLv3", that might be a more reasonable analogy than mine. The criticism was they used GPLv2 when they could have used GPLv2+. It's like using the buggy version specifically because others can't use the new UX with it (even though I can still use my old UX with the fixed version). Characterizing that as a move in opposition to those that like the new UX is the only reasonable characterization, absent other overriding factors (back out of metaphor, the only possible reason I could see is a need to use a lot of GPLv2 code in Git - someone else would have to speak to whether that is reality).

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

dllthomas 13y ago

This is bullshit rhetorical sophistry, and I'm pretty sure you know it. Choosing an incompatible license is the fault of the person who chose the license. The FSF made a mistake in not building "... or any later version" into the GPLv2; they acknowledge this. They've been recommending for some time - since long before the start of the Git project - that projects interested in being GPLv2 compatible include "... or any later version." Imagine it was a piece of software with a bug. There's a patched version, it's been broadly announced that there was a bug and there is a fix. You ignore that and use the buggy version. Whose fault is it when you trip over the bug? Claiming it is "entirely of [the programmer]'s own making" is absurd.

teacup50 13y ago
> This is bullshit rhetorical sophistry, and I'm pretty sure you know it. No, I don't know it. The GNU's license absolutism is what got them into this mess in the first place. It's inherent in their aims. > Imagine it was a piece of software with a bug. Imagine that it's a piece of software with a new UX direction not everyone agrees with.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  "No, I don't know it. The GNU's license absolutism is what got them into this mess in the first place. It's inherent in their aims." Dismantling of copyright and a replacement with a requirement ensuring the freedoms the FSF cares about would thrill them, and not produce this license-incompatibility mess. It is plain, therefore, that it is not at all inherent to their aims. It may be inherent to this particular strategy - but again, license compatibility is something they've been looking at explicitly since making the mistake with GPLv2. "Imagine that it's a piece of software with a new UX direction not everyone agrees with." If the criticism was "They did not use GPLv3", that might be a more reasonable analogy than mine. The criticism was they used GPLv2 when they could have used GPLv2+. It's like using the buggy version specifically because others can't use the new UX with it (even though I can still use my old UX with the fixed version). Characterizing that as a move in opposition to those that like the new UX is the only reasonable characterization, absent other overriding factors (back out of metaphor, the only possible reason I could see is a need to use a lot of GPLv2 code in Git - someone else would have to speak to whether that is reality).