Re: XEmacs and GPLv3
I think you're confusing me stating "he has a point" with "he's
unequivocally correct".
I'm merely stating that he does have a point in stating that there is
serious overlap, he makes a valid point (albeit an incomplete one) and
it should be brought up in the discussion. I don't think Kastrup
(despite his consistent belligerence towards the XEmacs team in general
and his inability to converse civilly on a recurring basis) should be
dismissed out of hand. Whilst I don't believe he's completely correct,
I do believe the man has a valid discussion point this time. Even a
blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then. This isn't a binary
"he's 100% right or 100% wrong" sort of issue.
FWIW, I have some contributions (albeit not huge ones, the various
delete-key handling stuff and a few support packages like crisp.el) that
were licensed under the "GPL V2.0 or later" clause. While I (in
general) prefer V2 over V3 and I don't like being bullied into V3
licensing, I don't have a problem with my code being relicensed if the
whole project goes that way (which it looks like it is).
-- Gary F.
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Gary Foster writes:
> Although it could've been phrased much more tactfully, the man does
> have a point.
Not really.
I realize that copyleft as a matter of law inherently must impose
severe restrictions on modes of sharing, so you might think that
worrying about small differences like GPLv2+ vs GPLv3+ is a waste of
worry. The point here is that copyleft provides nearly as little
flexibility in mode to authors as proprietary licensing does. I don't
blame them for asking for *what they want* even if that doesn't
correspond very well to *what the law says the license means* (here
"license" includes not only the GPL but the permissions language).
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta