[copyleft-next] anti-lock down non-negotiable-ness (was Re: [MERGE REQUEST] reinstate dl-supp)

Richard Fontana fontana at sharpeleven.org
Tue Dec 4 19:09:26 UTC 2012


On 12/04/2012 10:35 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> Linus Torvalds may have said something publicly about this during that
> time period as well (that is, about use of 'additional permissions'
> being unsatisfactory for those who might otherwise be able to live
> with GPLv3 but objected to the anti-lockdown requirement). 

Much later on he did:
http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0706.1/2700.html

So I might be remembering that, or perhaps he said something to the
same effect several months earlier.

Incidentally, re-reading this now after several years, I think Linus
is basically correct in saying "The whole notion of 'additional
permissions' in the GPLv3 is totally pointless". I mean, "totally
pointless" maybe going a bit far, but I came to a similar conclusion
in deleting the section 7 additional permissions scheme early on in
the drafting of copyleft-next.

However, Linus was not correct when he said "The reason for the
"additional permissions" is just to make the LGPL go
away, and become a sub-clause of the GPLv3." That was the reverse of
what happened: the FSF decided [very early on in the conceptualization
of GPLv3] to add a provision to GPLv3 explicitly addressing additional
permissions, and only when the matter of drafting an LGPLv3 was
considered, RMS realized that instead of drafting an entirely new
license, LGPLv3 could just be structured as GPLv3 plus additional
permissions.


  - RF





More information about the copyleft-next mailing list