OT: Using collective-work copyright to upgrade from GPL v2 to v3

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Donovan Hawkins (hawkins at cephira.com):

> You yourself quoted Licensing HOWTO which gave the same argument for why 
> you cannot convert from copyleft to non-copyleft:
> 
> "Note, however, that an `upgrade' from a copyleft license to a 
> non-copyleft license (or vice-versa) would be a different matter. If you 
> are a GPL partisan, you would be injured by a move to a non-GPL license, 
> and vice-versa."
> 
> What other injury does the "GPL partisan" suffer besides the ideological?

Economic.  Continued issuance of a copyleft licence prevents, for good
or ill, third parties from creating proprietary forks in competition.
Honestly, was that _actually_ difficult to figure out?  Plainly, your
doctorate was not in political economy.

> >Oh, give me a break.  If you want a warranty, Mr Hawkins, go buy one
> >(from someone willing to deal with you, as I'm guessing you'd be a
> >pretty high-maintenance customer).
> 
> Your personal attack aside....

Oh, I weep for your grievous and tragic wound, here.

> ...if you aren't willing to take the risk then why should the project 
> leader? 

I can turn that around and ask why should the project leader take the
risk of not using the licence that best protects the interests of
his/her contributors.  However, the merits of my analysis, or yours,
do not hinge on whether I (or you) are willing to volunteer to stake our
personal savings to make good random strangers' misfortune that they
argue resulted from variously implementing our recommendations. 

That is a ridiculous -- and, moreover, contemptible -- suggestion, which
thus I will not dignify further.

> And in case you feel the need to continue to make personal attacks, it's 
> actually Dr. Hawkins.

OK, Donovan High-Maintenance Hawkins, Ph.D., if you insist on being so
designated, I'm sure that can be arranged.

> >In _law_, actually, you do not.
> 
> You chose to remove the quote from you that I was replying to. If you'll 
> take the time to look at it, you'll see I was replying to whether or not 
> it was ethical.

If you'll bother to read my reply, you'll note that I rejected that
line of rhetoric explicitly, as well, and stated my reason why.

-- 
Your font is:      Proportional  Monospaced
                                      ^
Matt McIrvin's amazing Font-o-Meter!