3 ms·

> 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

• 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).