On 10/12/2012 09:25 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> the communication between the GPLv3 drafting committee and the Linux
> developers was completely botched.
Richard Fontana wrote on 14 October:
Just in the interest of historical accuracy, there was no
Said by someone who was *on* the drafting committee. :)
The actual drafting of the license was the work of RMS, Eben, and
with certain significant contributions by David Turner and, later, by
Brett Smith. I wouldn't call that group a "committee" (it didn't
function in any sense as a committee).
Right, that's sort of my point: that committee was likely dysfunctional
and therefore communications were not handled properly.
Anyone who cares strongly about the inclusion of the anti-lockdown
clause, at this stage, is someone largely content with GPLv3 (or, say,
someone who believes that GPLv2 already effectively implements
I believe GPLv2 does but since prominent figures in the community
don't agree with me and Alan Cox on that, there's a lot of estoppel
I don't think GPLv3 is good on this issue. It's been over-influenced by
lawyers. We need anti-lock-down provision in copyleft-next that's more
tenable. And we shouldn't start from "no right to 'install and run'
modified versions whatsoever" which is where the master branch stands at
Also, my point remains: current master branch of copyleft-next does *less*
to defend the freedom of installing modified versions than even GPLv2 does
on its *weakest* possible reading!
By contrast, I think there are some who are supportive or
supportive of the policy behind the network services clause who are
*not* entirely content with AGPLv3.
Agreed. But what if one supports both? What license is there for them?
It's not copyleft-next in its current form, that's for sure.