If this is actually the FSF's position, the only possible motive is actively taking away the freedom to modify and fix GPLv2 code.
-
-
-
@RichFelker Remember when they declared GPLv2-only a nonfree license on Savannah? https://lwn.net/Articles/176582/ … -
@RichFelker Remember when they replaced last GPLv2 releases of binutils and gdb with GPLv3 code to screw over qemu? http://landley.net/notes-2012.html#11-01-2012 … -
@landley@RichFelker The FSF has always been about freedom of the *code*. It has never been about freedom of *users*. Broken by design.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@RichFelker well, except it says not applicable for 1-line patch... I would expect them to argue it for a larger patch though. -
@justincormack Yes, I misread that part. -
@justincormack But for a larger patch, do they claim joint-copyright nullifies your right to sublicense under the assignment contract? -
@RichFelker apparently so, it specifically says both must agree. Which is I think legally incorrect, the rights are not joint.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@RichFelker So they seem aware that the position they would like to take won't hold up in court here?Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@RichFelker Looking closer the guy says "this particular bug fix is short enough to not be subject to copyright"Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.