/lurker surfacing Working on a new project with a collaboration team. They are throwing around GPLv3, Apache, and zlib.
An argument sprang up, which makes me concerned about DFSG-ness of the GPLv3. The GPLv3 allows for modifications per the license itself. This is apparent in statements by legal people who say that the Freetype license was not compatible with the GPLv2 because of their 'you MUST say we are partially responsible for your product', whereas it is with the GPLv3 since it allows for the modifications. Is the GPLv3 verified for integrity before getting a project DFSG approval? Is the GPLv3 even DFSG compatible? My biggest concern is that since it allows for small modifications, what would protect us, as the original authors, from someone taking our source, modifying a single line, then re-releasing under a modified GPLv3 that says that inclusion must state in documentation they had a part in the work. I'm probably going to win my argument for Apache license, but I realize the same thing may yet happen. I've found spreading better licenses increases their use by others, so I'm sticking to Apache unless its beyond my control. Not in need of paid-lawyer advice (I've released a lot of scripts under the WTFPL) but would like input. The debate sparked concern over any future use of ours of the GPL, at all. None of us like the FSF stance that the GPL is a contractible plague to even use GPL software as a static or dynamically linked library... and I'm dead against the GPL personally until that is changed. Apache for programs and WTFPL for scripts until then. Thanks in advance for any input. -- -Felyza -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/cahzo7kl908qlu2yrqszqrg1uqbg15bafpqw_4riaedxa+kd...@mail.gmail.com
