[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> Note: this criterion B2 could be fleshed out to list more bad practices > such as adding non-free clauses to licenses and using outdated versions > of licenses (though I would not prefer to see sites fail this criterion > just because they decide to include GPL-2-or-later for compatibility > with existing GPL-2 projects). I agree about added non-free clauses, and about GPL-2-or-later. (And about BSD-3-No-Military.) What should we do about GPL-2-only? We want to discourage people from choosing GPL-2-only as the license for a new package. But suppose someone wants to put a fork of Linux or Git in a repo? That is not a matter of "choosing" a license, it is a matter of stating the license that someone else chose. It would be bad for a site to refuse to host forks of GPL-2-only packages. A site could require that people ask permission to make a repo with GPL-2-only as the license. -- Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org) Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org) Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)