controversial GPLv3 could doom GPL's success

[chris at seberino.org]

> Once it was pointed out to me that once you do that, the Free Software
> Foundation, or RMS, practically owns your code bothered me to the point
> that I strictly forbade any version other than GPLv2.

I've heard similar concerns before and sympathize.  OTOH we need
such a flexible system so GPL can evolve with the times and new
dangers....e.g. software patents
Perhaps a "GPL Foundation" of volunteers
like the "GNOME Foundation" would foster
your trust better here?

> How much do you trust RMS? How much to you trust the FSF after RMS
> relinquishes control? Do you agree with all of his decisions? Are his
> choices of limiting freedom in the GNU Free Document License telling of
> future concessions to immutability of licensed works?

You told me before some details of gripes with GFDL and how you thought he
should have just used GPL for books.  I wish I remembered the
details.  Perhaps GFDL would make a good Th night topic for mini-talk?

> I have control over how my code is licensed.

> If the GPLv3 is suitable, then I would certainly use it.

Well I'm glad you are open to newer GPL versions.  I hope
GPLv3 meets your approval and many other peoples'.

> I am not worried at all. All the proposed GPLv3 is is another GPLv2-
> compatible license. We have dealt with these for years.
>
> To name a few:

> My point: There is a lot of software, in use on your computer at this
> moment, that is written with code that is licensed incompatibly with the
> GPLv2. Adding Yet Another License (GPLv3) to that list is not going to
> have a major impact.

OSI is publically stating they want to *decrease* number of
recommended licenses.  I'm not the only one concerned about
the hydra of ever increasing amounts of incompatible FLOSS
licenses.

chris