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

[Chris Travers]

On 9/9/07, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:
>
> 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.



Might, but might not as well.  The only argument I could see is that over
control of your own copyrights.  If I copy your GPL code into my proprietary
application, your logic would be that this is OK if I dont harm you
economically in the process.  For example, if your software is an industrial
process management tool and I make a supply chain management program....


> >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.


The project leader's role is to manage the project.  I think that one of
these goals is to keep the project out of court.  I suppose if there was a
clear and present danger to the project, your suggestion might make sense,
but in the absense of such a thing, the *safe* thing to do about the license
is to leave it the way it is.  Only when there is a *major* threat, move.

Why would a project leader want to do things where he/she could end up in
court or spending time worrying about a lawsuit instead of managing the
project?


>   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.



As a project manager, I believe that there is a general good in keeping
licenses as stable as possible, whether legally required or not.  In
general, one should be conservative in software engineering and license
changes, making as few changes as possible to keep things clear and
effective.

Changing licenses is not something to do lightly.

> 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.



(Classic case of projection?)

> >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.


BTW, in California, a few years ago, there was an interesting case involving
the Pledge of Allegiance (the Newdow case).  Here, the argument of standing
was entirely ideological (atheism in opposition to the Judeo-Christian God
mention).

So while I think that an ideological preference might not be sufficient, a
deep-rooted ideological belief might be.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20070909/e7d59961/attachment.html>