The real question is, if something has been released under GPLv2, can
anyone FORCE it to change to GPLv3? Even if the FSF owns the copyrights,
I would not think they could "unrelease" it, all they could do is put
out a new version under GPLv3 which everyone could then choose to
ignore. Stallman's "four freedoms" have given users the choice to
continue using/modifying/distributing the GPLv2 versions. If there is
any forking being done, it sounds like it will be the FSF doing it! I
think most people are going to follow the line of least resistance and
stay with GPLv2.
Jim Hartley
Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 12:46:54AM -0400, tom smith wrote:
>
>> Steve,
>> Yes, any article that deals in ad hominem attacks should
>> raise flags as to the possible existence of a hidden agenda.
>> The author's influences and motivations are not entirely
>> clear, thus should be suspect. Is this some sort of power
>> push against the FSF?
>>
>
> Actually, after reading the thing and considering it in light of recent
> events, I think there's a lot of on-target speculation in there. The
> paragraph describing Stallman in less than flattering terms isn't
> inaccurate as far as I can tell and, though it's somewhat unnecessary
> (the guy could have just made some off-hand comment about "eccentric
> personal habits" and so on to make his point without sound snarky), it
> doesn't really detract from the rest of the article unless you allow it
> to.
>
> There are some very sloppy bits of phrasing in there that make me wonder
> just how much contact the article's author might have had with the FLOSS
> community ("GNU license" in particular seems a mite sketchy), but the
> analysis of Stallman's risk of rendering himself irrelevant raises some
> interesting points. Frankly, I'm of the opinion that would be the best
> outcome of this: the FLOSS community moves on, the businesses
> surrounding it prosper on an open source model of software development
> and support, and Stallman retires into obscurity.
>
> It's certainly better than seeing him threaten small, grass roots
> community distro projects with lawsuits for failing to have the
> resources of Red Hat at their disposal but having the temerity to offer
> a Linux distro anyway.
>
> Frankly, it looks to me just a little like Stallman is trying to destroy
> EVERYTHING. He's specifically targeting corporations inclined toward
> closed software development and support models, threatening the future
> of Linux-centric companies like Red Hat, and threatening legal action
> for small community distributions. A conspiracy theorist might suggest
> that the FSF aims to wipe out competition so that a full-on GNU system
> can fill in the gaps (though hopefully with something a bit more useful
> than HURD). I doubt Stallman and the FSF are really thinking that far
> ahead on this, though. I think they probably really believe they're
> doing the Right Thing. Unfortunately, they're attempting to do this by
> being a real fly in everyone's ointment at the same time.
>
> I fully expect that Stallman and the FSF will release a GPLv3 that is
> simply unacceptable to a lot of people, many will move their projects to
> v3, and any of those projects that anyone cares about will fork.
>
> Meanwhile, I'm seriously looking into replacing all my Linux systems
> with FreeBSD.
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:11:34 EDT