first draft: completed Historical Background section
This commit is contained in:
parent
a9a0513787
commit
8be5affab9
1 changed files with 10 additions and 1 deletions
|
@ -201,6 +201,15 @@ We now see the same process happening, albeit much more slowly, with GPLv3.
|
||||||
We hear rhetoric drawing attention to perceived differences between GPLv2's
|
We hear rhetoric drawing attention to perceived differences between GPLv2's
|
||||||
and GPLv3's requirements, which seem untenable to firms, some of whom
|
and GPLv3's requirements, which seem untenable to firms, some of whom
|
||||||
maintain GPLv2'd forks of projects that have moved on to the
|
maintain GPLv2'd forks of projects that have moved on to the
|
||||||
``GPLv3-or-later'' upstream.
|
``GPLv3-or-later'' upstream. It is our view that if firms give some
|
||||||
|
attention to the history of ``slow but sure'' adoption of copyleft licenses,
|
||||||
|
after careful study of the compliance requirements, that GPLv3 requirements
|
||||||
|
can become as acceptable as the GPLv2 requirements already are. This paper
|
||||||
|
provides analysis, guidance and explanation of a set of specific terms in
|
||||||
|
GPLv3 that some firms have declared untenable: GPLv3's updated Installation
|
||||||
|
Information requirements. It is our hope that this detailed analysis will
|
||||||
|
replace rumor and supposition about GPLv3 requirements with cool-headed
|
||||||
|
consideration of the trade-offs between avoiding GPLv3 and meeting those
|
||||||
|
requirements --- just as firms did in the late 1990s with GPLv2.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\end{document}
|
\end{document}
|
||||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue