Re: GPL v3
Mats Lidell writes:
Stephen J. Turnbull writes:
> Until we decide we want to go v3, which is not quite a
no-brainer.
Not going with v3 will, I guess, cause problems with package syncs,
new
code and possibly more. So there must be a downside as well, Could you
please elaborate on the problems we need to address.
There are no "problems" *we* can address; we either accept the GPLv3
or we don't. From a pragmatic standpoint, as you point out, we have
been made an offer we can't refuse. That's why I say it's a
no-brainer.
The "almost" is pure "I don't use .0 versions of software, and I
don't
want to use .0 versions of legal documents, either, until they've been
field-tested." The GPLv2 has many nitpicky legal problems, starting
from the fact that it is as much a manifesto as it is a license. The
GPLv3 hasn't really improved on those problems, and adds *lots* more,
including language that is void on the face of it (para 1 of sec 3 and
sec 17). The language is generally much more obscure than GPLv2 was;
that cannot be good, not as law and not for the movement.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta