On Sunday, 31 August 2014 at 09:23:28 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
I have a hard time believing there's no middle ground there.
Shoot, even theoretical physics has simplified explanations ("A
Brief History of Time"). No doubt this could be summarized too
without resorting to "MS try be bad. GPLv3 stop MS be bad. Ug."
It's all based on the legal system and if it is taken to court,
so that's where it's at. I'd love to say there's no middle
ground, but i honestly don't know. Could ask him for exact
details.
But if a license designed with the specific and sole purpose of
promoting openness can't even get along with another version
itself, then something's clearly gone horribly, horribly wrong
with it.
I've glanced over sources and put in my own for License GPLv2 or
later. Each progressive version adds more protection. It's
probably only incompatible so someone can't take a GPLv3 of a
program and slap a GPLv2 on it 'cause it's compatible' then use
the lesser protection to get around it for which the v3 was
specifically giving. Beyond that both licenses work to grant and
protect the author as much as possible.
I can link BSD 2-clause, 3-clause and even 4-clause all into
the same program just fine. Forget the usual "BSD vs GPL"
argument about GPL viral unwillingness to play nice with other
licenses, the thing can't even play nice with *itself*!
The viral nature is to ensure programs and software grows
(hopefully) and stays to it's original intent. A sed program
suddenly no longer being free or changing owners would be scooped
up by a greedy company in a heartbeat, especially if it's heavily
used.
Know what I really want to see? I wanna see some smart-ass make
a GPL program statically linking GPLv2 code with GPLv3 code.
Then drift it past the FSF's nose. I'd be fascinated to see
what happens.
Does FSF conveniently drop the "GPLv2 and GPLv3 are
incompatible" bullshit and just let it slide? Or do they
lawyer-up in an idiotic brawl against their own creations? Or
do their heads just spin around, let out a puff of smoke and
explode?
As for GPLv2 and GPLv3 code, depends on the license in the
sourcecode. As mentioned the GPLv2 code could automatically be
upgraded as it would offer no disadvantages, especially if the
source says you can use v2 or later... no problems.
Course if some software does have to link there's always the
LGPL for libraries and whatnot...
But reality doesn't give a crap how much he wants openness or
what his background is: Things aren't going to go his way just
because he wants it badly enough. He has attempt his goals
within the framework of reality.
<snip>
The ones to control who or what works is the people who vote
with their wallets. If no one buys proprietary software, then it
won't work. Unfortunately even if no citizens bought it,
businesses still do. It's entirely possible things will go his
way, and i surely hope so since the vision is a very good one.
However i don't feel up to a really long rant or discussion on
this, this isn't why i brought this all up.
We can bang the dictionary all we want, but really, aside from
the ultra-pedantics, nobody actually means that narrow
definition when they say "open source".
Perhaps not. But quite often you can only take it 'to the
letter'. And the lawyers love to take it 'to the letter'; Along
with companies that own the 'open source' that is spoken about.
