[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: samba license change



On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 00:26 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 06:06 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 13:38 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > 
> > > The bit that bothers me is that not only was Samba for the longest time
> > > mentioned in most GPLv3 news articles, we asked if anybody had a reason
> > > not to change our licence, and nobody gave a compelling reason.
> > The rationales for projects not wanting to switch to GPLv3 are quite
> > simple:
> > - GPLv2 has a long tradition. How to apply it is well understood, its
> > implications on works is well understood.
> > - GPLv2 had been challenged at courts. Its leaks/wholes and its
> > validity/applicability are well understood.
> > 
> > With GPLv3 these points do not apply anymore. It's all "brand new".
> > 
> > I.e. on one hand you have the FSF claiming GPLv3 to be "great progress"
> > and to close "leaks" GPLv2 has/was accused to have, on the other hand
> > you have fear und uncertainty due to lack of understanding the GPLv3 and
> > lack of facts to support the FSF's claims (e.g. challenges at courts).
> 
> If we had to wait for court approval on licenses Free software and Open
> Source would not exist at all, that has never stopped anybody in the
> past nor in the present, it is just a marginal consideration.
Well, it matters very much to individuals if they want to endanger
themselves by the uncertainties of a "brand new" license a political
organization with controversial (some say "fundamentalist zealotic")
attitude (the FSF) tries to enforce.

> In any case this is completely irrelevant, we are not asking anybody to
> go GPLv3, but to come out with a decision on what they want to do. Once
> that is clear we will know how to handle the situation.
Though I am strongly convinced about OpenSource and am usually
supporting it, for my own works, I have decided not to apply GPLv3 (at
least for now), because there are details inside I consider
counterproductive[1] and ... because I prefer not to expose myself to
the risks of this license :)

Ralf

[1] E.g. the FSF now considering dynamic linkage as "combined works".
This topic is not as clear as the FSF wants it to appear. It is
controversial and collides with "provided by the OS".





[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]