[Savannah-hackers] Re: address@hidden: Re: Software under GPL v2 only on fsf site]

[Mathieu Roy]

Frederic Couchet <address@hidden> said:

> >>>>> "Mathieu" == Mathieu Roy <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>     Mathieu> The most common issue is in fact people that have nothing at all
>     Mathieu> against "GPL v2 and later" but have "GPL v2" in their package 
> because
>     Mathieu> they didn't think about it previously. This issue is harmless - 
> fixed
>     Mathieu> before approval.
> 
> There is some people that don't agree with "GPL v2 and later". They
> want release their software under the "GPL v2 only" license.
> 
> Ok, in the select box people can select "GPL v2" but they can select
> "Other License". If they choose "Other License" savannah-hackers will
> review this request on a case-by-case basis. But, in the facts, the
> "GPL v2" will be always refused. So, I think it would be useful to
> update the registration informations.


It's true that savannah-hackers "review [...] on a case-by-case
basis" these requests: the submitter have to explain his choice
(explicitly said).  
Truth is no good reason to refuse "and later" in the Savannah
perspective: As long as people trust the FSF, it's not a problem
and if they do not, why would they choose Savannah?. 
So usually, the reasons given are not convincing.

But it may happen someday. For instance, if someday there is a good
reason to build a fork of the project linux, it may be a good idea to
accept hosting it Savannah. But linux is "GPL v2 only" and it cannot
be changed until every authors agree this changed, and that day is not
today. 
(Don't get me wrong, we are not going to discuss about linux - I just
picked this example because it's a well-known "GPL v2 only" project)

For this reason, I think we should not close the door. I think we
should keep it that way:
        - We only tell with licenses are always ok.
        - We ask to explain reasons to choose another license,
          including GPL v2.
        - If someone have good reasons, we ask rms to make a decision
        

Finally, it happens 2/3 times per year that someone have a problem with
"GPL v2 or later".

But rms, if you think we really have to add something about that, it
would be good if you (for instance) write a text explaining why "GPL
v2 and later" is better than "GPL v2" (maybe it already exists, I did
not checked recently - if so, tell me, I'll search for it).
People registering project are apparently not in a mood for reading,
so it's better to provide explanations interesting for only a few with
links.

Agree, not agree? Decision?


Regards,

-- 
Mathieu Roy
 
  Homepage:
    http://yeupou.coleumes.org
  Not a native english speaker: 
    http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english