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.
Just in the interest of historical accuracy, there was no "GPLv3
drafting committee". There were four "Discussion Committees". 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). Some of the members of some of the
Discussion Committees did have some influence on some parts of the
license.
(There was a fifth committee of sorts called the "International
Committee", but it had no influence whatsoever on the drafting of GPLv3.)
That error being made, we now live with the consequences. But to
allow
that error to propagate into a decision that no anti-lock-down provision
should even be *available* to copyleft-next users is completely
unreasonable in my view.
It's available in the sense that copyleft-next is one-way
GPLv3-compatible.
I believe we're going to continue to fight about the question of
whether
anti-lock-down is a primary feature of copyleft-next. However, it seems
to me a needlessly contentious act to delete the *supplement*. If the
supplement structure of copyleft-next exists, then the two supplements
that must be officially recommended are the (a) network services clause
and (b) anti-lock-down clause.
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). 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. That's my
intuition, at any rate; I may be wrong about both statements.
- RF