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
"GPLv3
drafting committee".
Said by someone who was *on* the drafting committee. :)
The actual drafting of the license was the work of RMS, Eben, and
me,
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
anti-lockdown).
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
generated.
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
this moment.
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
potentially
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.
--
-- bkuhn