Re: GPL v3? Other license options?

[John Locke <..hidden..>]

Stroller wrote:

> This discussion shouldn't be to complicated! Surely all the  
> developers are familiar with the GPL. The GPL v3 is a contentious  
> subject and has been discussed to death elsewhere; there is therefore  
> no need for a flamewar on this list - surely a "now", "never!" or  
> "maybe" poll is all that's needed?
Maybe.

Chris Travers wrote:
>
> Quick overview (IANAL, this is just my impression, etc);
> 1)  Arguably limits the definition of corresponding source code to
> exclude optional dependencies.
> 2)  No locking of consumers out of their hardware (unsure if this has
> any teeth or if 7b legal notices could enforce machine-readible
> corresponding flags thereby rendering this meaningless, also creating
> invarient portions of *code*).
> 3)  All interactive interfaces must include licensing information.
> 4)  Ability for code to be included in Affero General Public License
> (this is one-way, we would have to adopt the AGPL to get modifications
> back, ick.)
>
Nice summary. I have no idea how accurate/complete this is... because:
>  Also the license is 3 times as long as v2 and *far* harder to
> read/understand.

That's one of the key reasons I liked v2--it was written so that us lay
people could understand it. I have not yet taken the time to actually
read v3 yet.

I hadn't heard any discussion about point 3 in your list--is that really
necessary for the GPLv3? If so, that sounds like a tremendous pain in
the butt, as well as a usability hindrance. Almost sounds like it's
demanding you create adware that advertises for the FSF. If that's
really the case, I would be opposed to moving to v3.  Otherwise, I don't
care much either way... and since I'm lazy, I'm generally opposed to
doing work that doesn't have a clear benefit...

Cheers,

-- 
John Locke
"Open Source Solutions for Small Business Problems"
published by Charles River Media, June 2004
http://www.freelock.com