Wedge

I don't think it's ironic that a license that explicitly allows you to fork it gets forked, but it's interesting.

Let's take a look at the changes:

1. Removes "how to apply" section. - Good idea in my book, it only served to make the text longer.
2. Deletes the preamble. - Fine by me.
3. Removes part about semiconductor copyright. - And not a single fuck was given about that.
4. Removed "entity transactions" biglaw mumbo-jumbo. - Good.
5. Removes definition of "this license" - Seems okay.
6. Removes technicality that was only added to circumvent historic Microsoft tomfoolery. - Fine by me.
7. Removes text concerning the effects of the US-style warranty and liability disclaimers under German law - It's a strange thing to be in there in the first place, but I'm not sure if removing it altogether is a solution.
8. Changes warranty and a couple of other things to read MPL-style, making it easier to read. - Nothing wrong with this, but has few real-world implications
9. Makes Apache license compatibility explicit and easier to understand

General other changes: Making stuff easier to read. Taking out double definitions and simplified headers. Making definitions easier to understand for the layperson

In short, this has no real world implications other than simplifying the license so less legally minded people can read it easier.

Oh, it is, because the GPL has for so long been the 'go to' licence. GPLv2 is 21 years old, GPLv3 is about 5 years old, and this is the first time anyone's dared fork the main licences themselves - this isn't a spin-off by the FSF realising that the GPL is flawed (which is the only reason the LGPL even exists, and the FSF would take it back if they could)

That's the thing, I did attempt to read it last night and it looked just as thorough and impenetrable as the main GPL is.

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.

It's not what they've done, it's why they've done it.

GPL has always considered itself to be the ultimate copyleft licence, it's supposed to be a shining example of strong copyleft. It strikes me as ironic that someone has dared to fork it, and actually attempt to reduce its copyleft status because as per the presentation from the author, strong copyleft actually doesn't work.All I'll say is: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html - while they admit for some libraries, LGPL is a fine fit, they'd much rather everyone just sucked it up and went GPL. That is what they're saying: note how they actually go on to say that 'when a library provides a significant unique capability' it should be GPL, such that anything that's reasonably generic, they don't really care, but when it would be advantageous to their cause, it would be better to be GPL. That's not a definition of freedom in my book.

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

Here's the thing. The FSF promotes GPL as the ultimate copyleft licence, and while it can be forked, it is preferred that people don't, because that actually dilutes the effect GPL can itself have. The fact that someone who is essentially outside the 'core' of the FSF has done so strikes me as ironic because it's using the very tool itself to demonstrate its own flaws.

Here's the other thing: I don't find the GPL free in any fashion. What it means is that others have freedom to use my work pretty much how they see it, and I'm left with very little control over my own work. It's 'freedom' going downstream but it doesn't leave me free to have any say in what happens next, and I'm actually surprised this hasn't happened before.

If GPL.next is clearer and easier to follow than the core GPL, I would expect up-take to be more meaningful. If nothing else I expect it to outpace AGPL adoption.

This is not a flaw in the eyes of the FSF. This is intended behavior for something under GPL license, fork and be forked. The author of GPL.next does not do this to demonstrate flaws in GPL, he does this to make the GPL more readable and to make it apply to cloud software. A fork is not a "war" it is a suggestion of improvement, in the eyes of the FSF.

I know you don't find the GPL free, which is why I've repeatedly said "their vision of freedom" instead of calling it freedom in unto itself. I don't agree with the GPL myself, but if I were to operate on their dogma, it makes perfect sense for a fork to take place.

*shrug* I think this is one place we will have to agree to disagree.

Did you watch the presentation where he actually outlines the flaws he perceives in the GPL? Not all of them are related to length and readability.

Hmm, as they've always made it clear they're against license proliferation (and GPL.next is another license, whether they like it or not!), and they've also always said that forking isn't good (notice how the guy says here that forking "in the github sense" is good -- meaning it isn't as good elsewhere...), I'm pretty sure the FSF doesn't like the idea of what he's doing...

Then again, if he can do something (like give a fuck) about web apps and the realities of it, well...

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

If he wants to keep compatibility, then it means anyone can revert this to gpl. In my eyes it's a failure I'm afraid.