[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Savannah-hackers] submission of CCMS

From: mose
Subject: Re: [Savannah-hackers] submission of CCMS
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 12:45:05 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i

On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 12:12:38PM +0200, Loic Dachary wrote:
> mose writes:
>  > On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 09:37:04AM +0200, Loic Dachary wrote:
>  > > 
>  > >  Hi,
>  > > 
>  > >  You chose the "GPL v2 or later" option but the license notices
>  > > in the distribution say:
>  > 
>  > - ah. that point is a problem for me.
>  > I feel intellectually uncomfortable to agree with something that 
>  > I didn't read. Please can you send me the GPL version 'later' ? 
>  > I read carefully GPL v2 and it fits to my goals, it's a good contract
>  > to protect my production and its life beyond me. But I can't accept to
>  > sign a white sheet.
>       This is not a white sheet. The GNU GPL itself limits the
> changes of future versions to details and not spirit. In addition,
> unacceptable changes in details (Free Software wise) would mean that
> the FSF has to be taken over. However, I do understand that you're reluctant
> to take a risk, no matter how low it may seem.
>       This is a question of balance. Is it worth taking this low
> risk in order to avoid the problems generated by not adding the "GPL
> version 2 or later" ?

- the estimation of the risk is personnal. My personnal opinion is
that some FSF leaders are very pro-american and it can become a
problem if international polical context becomes conflictual.
I don't think it's a real danger, I just say I don't wish to 
be obligated to take that risk.

By the way you didn't explain me the dangers and problems generated 
by not adding 'GPL version 2 or later'.

I don't catch that point. Is it a trick for lawyers or anything 
of that taste ?

best regards,

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]