When will the FSF deal honestly with the so-called "GPLv2 Death Penalty"?
We all know that the German courts (in Welte vs. Sitecom; 2004) ruled quite clearly that the license offer is *always* available to everyone ... including former license violators. Why doesn't/didn't the FSF discuss this aspect of the decision when they hailed the verdict as a vindication of the GPL? My answer: The FSF is dishonest. If we can't trust the FSF to be open about something as obvious as this, what else are they hiding?
Instead the FSF continues to push the GPLv3 and assert that the enforcement component (Section 8) is more forgiving that the enforcement component of the GPLv2 (Section 4). To be clear: In terms of "copyright violation" it is more forgiving ... but in terms of "permanent revocation of license" it is not. IMO they can provide their view ... but if they provide that view without discussing actual relevant rulings that contradict that view, they are dishonest.
I've brought this up to you before two years ago (/u/redrumsir on reddit) and had hoped that, as a member of the board, you would at least bring this up and we would see a clarification in a FAQ somewhere.
Power management, mobile and firmware developer on Linux. Security developer at Aurora. Ex-biologist. mjg59 on Twitter. Content here should not be interpreted as the opinion of my employer. Also on Mastodon.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
FSF, SFC, and the SFLC
Date: 2017-11-14 03:43 pm (UTC)We all know that the German courts (in Welte vs. Sitecom; 2004) ruled quite clearly that the license offer is *always* available to everyone ... including former license violators. Why doesn't/didn't the FSF discuss this aspect of the decision when they hailed the verdict as a vindication of the GPL? My answer: The FSF is dishonest. If we can't trust the FSF to be open about something as obvious as this, what else are they hiding?
Instead the FSF continues to push the GPLv3 and assert that the enforcement component (Section 8) is more forgiving that the enforcement component of the GPLv2 (Section 4). To be clear: In terms of "copyright violation" it is more forgiving ... but in terms of "permanent revocation of license" it is not. IMO they can provide their view ... but if they provide that view without discussing actual relevant rulings that contradict that view, they are dishonest.
I've brought this up to you before two years ago (/u/redrumsir on reddit) and had hoped that, as a member of the board, you would at least bring this up and we would see a clarification in a FAQ somewhere.