* simo wrote, On 21/11/07 15:08: 
On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 14:49 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
  
Sam Liddicott <sam@liddicott.com> wrote:
    
In fact I had better NOT use GPL3 (or "or later") or folk might promote
their additions to my work to be AGPL thus preventing me from benefiting
in return from their changes (as I won't adopt AGPL).
      
Indeed.  Unless we delete the AGPL-friendly clause, a project might as
well use MIT/Expat or BSD or zlib instead of the GPLv3 and save some
bytes and developer-time on the licences.
    

Why don't you simply put everything in the Public Domain?
Why bothering about copyleft at all?
The point (well made) was that these other licenses (as with public domain) allow others to take do not allow us to take back on terms that suit us.

I will probably not use the AGPL in future, but I  don't seek excuses
not to use the GPLv3,
Presumably why you have been moderately silent on this topic up till now, the status quo suits you.

But until today I was seeking excuses why and how my meager but interesting kernel contributions (under an assumed name) SHOULD be GPL2 or later.
Now I'm glad the kernel won't be GPL3, because I *use* it, I release custom kernels on embedded hardware. AGPL would suck, I don't want to be able to get near it.
and frankly why should I care what you or Sam
*claim* will or will not use?
this *IS* troll talk. I don't care if you care, I don't even recognize your name.
There are tons of projects already switching to GPLv3, evidently these
people think it's a good license worth using,
if they did think. If they noticed.
at least they are not so
vocal about their opinions but just *act*.
I'm vocal because I just noticed.
Please add something interesting to the discussion or maybe consider
saving our time and bandwidth. You are not required to answer at all
costs if you have really nothing to say.
Not every comment on this list is designed to be interesting to you.

If all you have to say is how boring we are, feel free not to say it.

Sam