Amusing article about busybox

[Bernd Petrovitsch]

On Mit, 2012-02-15 at 03:41 +0200, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Bernd Petrovitsch
> <bernd at petrovitsch.priv.at> wrote:
> > On Son, 2012-02-12 at 01:26 +0200, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Rich Felker <dalias at aerifal.cx> wrote:
> > [...]
> >> It doesn't matter why the GPL exists, it only matters why the
> >> copyright holders chose it. If they realize the GPL is doing a
> >> disservice to them, they might choose something else.
> >
> > But you cannot change the license of already released versions *and* you
> > need the agreement of all copyright holders to change the license.
> 
> So? Licenses do change. It is not a pleasant process, in some projects
> more painful than others, but they do change if they must.

No, licenses do not change on their own, but *people* change a license.

*People* can change the license for new source code and tell all others.
You cannot rewrite history and change the license later on.

And a license as such does not change itself. And there is a reason, why
some people do not choose the "automatic update" option as in "GPLv2 or
later" (though other would like to have it) - no one knows what's in the
next release.

Perhaps the interpretation of an existing license (text) changes or
needs to be clarified for certain situations (new ones or not so new
ones). Or some laws or court orders change it.

But all this is driven by *people* and people have a reason.
So in each of these discussions, please think about who pushes for the
change and - even more important - who benefits from that change in what
way and who looses something - independent of any word games people play
and any presented reasoning.
The latter one is usually just the sales stuff and the other 90% - the
drawbacks - of the implications are kept secret. Welcome to lobbyism and
politics as such ...

> > And that's what some (if not many) people motivates to work on GPL
> > software (and to not work with other licenses).
> 
> As the GPLv3 vs GPLv2 divide demonstrates; not all people have the
> same expectations about what the GPL should do.

But it is IMHO very clear what's the intention and spirit behind GPLv3
and GPLv3 (if we ignore that some people always try to redefine words to
change some written text) and the wording as such cannot be changed.

If the license doesn't fit you, take another one.
If that project has a given license, you either accept it (and your
contributed stuff also falls under that license) or shouldn't contribute
at all.
If you misunderstand the license and it's implications, *you* may have a
problem.

	Bernd
-- 
Bernd Petrovitsch                  Email : bernd at petrovitsch.priv.at
                     LUGA : http://www.luga.at