[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Front page to wiki now modifiable again

From: Aaron Bentley
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Front page to wiki now modifiable again
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 14:52:17 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (X11/20040309)

Tom Lord wrote:
Restricting your code to v2-only in a world shifting to v3 may
radically undermine the utility of your code in the future.   That has
probability Q and a "cost" of QC.
My opinion?

I don't see any way at all that V3 can be V2-compatible.  So, I
simplify my analysis by assuming that Q is 1.  I'm left asking

I don't agree with this part of the analysis. There are two parts to the question:
1. will V2 be v2-incompatible?  Here, I'd agree
2. will V3 be widely used?  I think this depends on the qualities of V3.

I very much like my code to be re-usable now and in the future.
Therefore, I think QC is pretty high:

It's possible that v2 will simply become another category-- works licensed under it will stay active, but will not cross-breed with v3-only works. But that's just as much the fault of people who release works under only v3-only as it is the fault of people who release under v2-only.

So I don't think we can know whether the cost will be high.

The FSF is socially bound by the
history of the GPL and the rhetoric around it and by it's legal status
as a public-interest NPO.   I'd cap PC as "less than or equal to BIG".

That's a good argument against "intentional flaws". If I was arguing your side, I'd add that any prospective GPL successor will be widely scrutinized, making the risk of accidental flaws is quite low.

If v3 is flawed, your code may be used in ways you don't desire
If v3 is not flawed, your code may cease to be used

So maybe 2+ is a good choice, after all.

Aaron Bentley
Director of Technology
Panometrics, Inc.

reply via email to

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