Wedge

That's not A.D.D...

I fail to see how this could in any way be great.

I don't care about his opinion anyway, but competitors are always good.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

GC is basically SVN with a few nice additions though.

I have read the licence text itself, the article about the license and all around the intent of the author seems to be to strengthen the GPL/The idea of copyleft, he does so in a sense that makes total sense in the FSF fork way, he even explicitly states in the readme that:andHe is not against the GPL. He merely wants the GPL to be more robust, and he tries to do this on the FSFs terms. (He forks the license, something they discourage but allow, it's quite clear the possibility of someone doing this is not something the FSF wants to block.) He is not attacking the idea of GPL/copyleft, but the execution.

He also states that:Hinting that he wants this to become at least part of the next GNU GPL.

As for the presentation itself the website is down (has been since linked) and it is fucking annoying because I always like to know as much as I can before I try to argue something. From all I can see however, this is not an "exploit" of the GPL license, seeing as it was clearly the intention of the FSF to allow forking, and the author is from all I can see, a proponent of copyleft.

I suppose I am cool with agreeing to disagree though, this is hardly something that matters much to either of us, as we both are unlikely to ever use the GPL or GPL.next for anything

The author of the fork has publicly said that "strong copyleft is vitally important". The article also says "The goal of this effort is to develop an improved strong copyleft free software license." He is not against copyleft, he just thinks its current implementation in GPL is flawed.

His biggest issue with the GPL is its length and complexity, both of which he has changed. He has not really changed anything that will have real life implications, and does not seem keen on it, apart from perhaps making the license more suited for "cloud-based applications". Even if his intent while changing the GPL was to change it drastically, I don't see how one person thinking a license is flawed and changing it to his views is in any way ironic.

This is not irony. This is exactly what GPL sets off to do, let people edit programs (and in this case licenses) while letting other people again or the original author himself take these edits and use them for whatever they want to use it for. In the end they think this will make programs and the world a better place. I disagree, but I still don't see the irony in someone doing exactly so.

---

Yes, the FSF thinks the LGPL is flawed. They want everyone to use GPL because that would serve their vision of freedom. Just like Ford would probably like everyone to buy the car they've produced that gives them the highest income. Ford however realizes that this is not likely to happen because people, strangely, want different things. So in an effort to get people to buy cars and gain a little bit of money from the people who won't buy the most expensive car, they make other cars too. Perhaps these people will buy a more expensive Ford next time. Just like the FSF, in an effort to at least imprint some "freedom" into the world instead of none (what is realistic, without the LGPL people would use other less copyleft-inducing licenses, or maybe even proprietary ones). Maybe next time they'll go for full GPL, is how they think. And it seems to me a fairly pragmatic way of handling things.[1]

1.	Now here's the ironic part, the FSF isn't known to be pragmatic

I think we have different ideas of what irony and readability must mean in that case. Just the part where they've cut 25% of the text has in my opinion made it easier to read than the original. And I still don't see how someone "daring" to fork it should be ironic, seeing as, as I said, the GPL explicitly allows for people to do so (IE: They thought of the possibility many years ago and found that they could live with it, now someone does it. What would be ironic is if developers flocked to the new version, something I don't see happening.)

I don't think the FSF thinks the GPL is flawed, in the same way Ford doesn't think the Escort is flawed even while they also produce the Mondeo. They just realize that different people might want different licenses. The goal for Ford is to make money. The goal for the FSF is their perverted idea of software freedom. Both of them try to achieve this through what I must call logical reasoning and action.

Works for me in IE8.