Re: GNU Arch wiki being moved

The main issue is license compatibility.  

Solidarity with the FSF is not important to me.   I myself
am beginning to think that solidarity with the FSF is harmful
to the free software movement -- but that issue will take a
bit of time and patience to explain.

The GPLv3 draft and Eben Moglen's talks on the topic
seem pretty good to me.   I know it is potentially divisive,
especially re Linus -- but, y'know, there *are* other kernels....


-t


Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Lord <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>>>             
>
>     Thomas> The V2-only wiki status is unfortunate and I'd add it to
>     Thomas> the list of what I think are Canonical's gratuitous `screw
>     Thomas> you' behavior visited upon the GNU Arch project.
>
> Please stop this, Tom.  The FSF's behavior with draft GPLv3 is just as
> gratuitous and "screw you" from the point of view of many in the
> community that Arch would like to serve, which AFAIK is much broader
> than the GNU Project.  I for one think it unlikely that I will use
> GPLv3 for my own work, though I don't feel so strongly that I argue
> against "GPLv2 or later" for projects where that is current practice.
>
> Regarding which version of the GPL to use, would you be specific about
> the advantages to the Wiki (other than the obvious == expression of
> solidarity with the FSF) to the GPLv3?
>
> Do we expect people to add patented content?  On the contrary, do you
> realize that if we want to publicly oppose a patent related to SCM, we
> arguably *cannot* post its content to the wiki under GPLv3 because of
> the extremely broad explicit patent license required?  (By contrast
> the implicit license in GPLv2 presumably wouldn't extend to
> documentation that isn't intended to be executed.)
>
> Do we expect our wiki content to be used as part of DRM systems?  How?
>
> Do we expect people to post encrypted content without posting the keys?
>
> Do we expect contributors to want to take advantage of the niggling
> acknowledgement variations permitted by the GPLv3?  Really?
>
> Am I missing something else?
>
>