We Love GPLv3, but Are Switching License to Apache 2.0

Re:We Love GPLv3, but Are Switching License to Apache 2.0 by endgame on Tuesday December 08, 2020 @04:21PM (#25351513)

Reading the text of GPLv3 closely, I was disappointed at how little its additional provisions actually protect. It read like it guarded against Tivoisation and not much else, but the world's moved on since then.

GPLv3 either went too far, or not far enough (in terms of cost incurred: gaining enough ground that the community split is worthwhile, volume of license text, ...).

If I had a time machine, I'd suggest the FSF to try frog-boiling people into software freedom instead.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We Love GPLv3, but Are Switching License to Apache 2.0 by JoshTriplett on Tuesday December 08, 2020 @04:58PM (#25351936)

I do wonder what would have happened in the counterfactual world in which the FSF put out a new version of the GPL annually, with minor changes in each version, rather than a big revision one time. A slow ratchet, together with the guarantee of forward-compatibility.

I also wonder whether many people would have refused to use the GPL if it had had the "or any later version" built in and unremovable, rather than making it part of the license grant.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We Love GPLv3, but Are Switching License to Apache 2.0 by frabbit on Tuesday December 08, 2020 @05:52PM (#25352625)

Endless FUD is a likely outcome of that. Worse than now, if you can imagine it.

[ Parent | on HN ]