On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 7:47 AM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso(a)mit.edu> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 07:42:07AM -0700, Luis Villa wrote:
> I think that's primarily because (other than FSF) large non-profits
> using GPL v2 fall into two camps: (1) trust FSF implicitly or (2) have
> other, non-proxy, problems with upgrading to GPL v3. For example, I'm
> pretty sure GNOME would want to use the proxy clause if GNOME switched
> to v3 - but they're unlikely to switch to v3 because of fragmented
> license ownership.
I'm confused. Do you mean "do NOT trust the FSF implicitly"? If they
did, they would take advantage of the proxy terms, right?
I mean that one camp does trust FSF 100%, so when they upgrade, they
see no need to use the proxy terms to replace FSF's judgment on
The other camp does not trust FSF 100%, and so would use the proxy
terms - *if* they were upgrading to v3. But they're not upgrading to
v3 for other reasons - either practical or ideological.
And certainly there are groups (like the Linux Kernel community)
do have fundamental philosophical divisions with the FSF. I'm not
sure if that's a "trust" issue, though --- I trust the FSF to follow
Richard Stallman's ideals.
Sure, trust might not be the right word. But it was shorter than
"don't feel they can rely on FSF to produce a v4 in line with their