Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Front page to wiki now modifiable again

[Aaron Bentley]

Tom Lord wrote:
> Restricting your code to v2-only in a world shifting to v3 may
> radically undermine the utility of your code in the future.   That has
> probability Q and a "cost" of QC.
>
> My opinion?
>
> I don't see any way at all that V3 can be V2-compatible.  So, I
> simplify my analysis by assuming that Q is 1.  I'm left asking

I don't agree with this part of the analysis.  There are two parts to 
the question:
1. will V2 be v2-incompatible?  Here, I'd agree
2. will V3 be widely used?  I think this depends on the qualities of V3.

> I very much like my code to be re-usable now and in the future.
> Therefore, I think QC is pretty high:

It's possible that v2 will simply become another category-- works 
licensed under it will stay active, but will not cross-breed with 
v3-only works.  But that's just as much the fault of people who release 
works under only v3-only as it is the fault of people who release under 
v2-only.

So I don't think we can know whether the cost will be high.

> The FSF is socially bound by the
> history of the GPL and the rhetoric around it and by it's legal status
> as a public-interest NPO.   I'd cap PC as "less than or equal to BIG".

That's a good argument against "intentional flaws".  If I was arguing 
your side, I'd add that any prospective GPL successor will be widely 
scrutinized, making the risk of accidental flaws is quite low.

If v3 is flawed, your code may be used in ways you don't desire
If v3 is not flawed, your code may cease to be used

So maybe 2+ is a good choice, after all.

Aaron
--
Aaron Bentley
Director of Technology
Panometrics, Inc.