Richard Fontana wrote at 20:42 (EDT) on Thursday:
So you agree with the view (which I've heard before) that the
additional permissions scheme of GPLv3 allows GPLv3 to become the
license to end all licenses?
I didn't mean it that broadly. Specifically, I believe
GPLv3+additional_permissions can express any GPL-compatible copyleft
there is just a psychological difference between, say, the ISC
and (GPLv3 + lots of additional permissions [+ allowed additional
restrictions] to make GPLv3 equivalent to ISC).
I agree it's not worthwhile to express highly permissive licenses that
aren't copylefts as GPLv3 with additional permissions. Focusing on that
part of it is IMO a strawman argument, though. I didn't mean to argue
for that; I'm talking about copylefts.
In any case, this vision of GPLv3 as the license to end all licenses
has (in 5 years) failed.
I wouldn't be participating in copyleft-next if I thought AGPLv3 were
the perfect copyleft. I just believe it's the best copyleft we have
right now available to us. Calling GPLv3/AGPLv3 a failure is just FUD.
It's a good piece of work that could be better. You know I agree with
you that some pointless compromises were made in GPLv3, but they don't
make it a bad license by any means. AGPLv3, in fact, is IM (very
biased) O, the best copyleft license ever written yet, but I expect it
won't be the best copyleft license *ever* written in my lifetime.
The goal of simplicity/conciseness is sufficiently important to me
that it is necessary to draft the license while figuring out
philosophy and policy as I go along.
That's a reasonable position, although I think this process was used
during GPLv3 drafting somewhat too, and I think there were major bugs in
the GPLv3 process. OTOH, those bugs may be unrelated to this aspect of
(If other people do and want to propose them, great!)
I indeed did so, this morning.