My concerns about GPLv3 process

Stefano Maffulli stef at
Sat Jan 28 16:56:40 UTC 2006

On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 11:55 +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> I hope that's true, but the lack of progress on the GFDL issue is not
> what I'd call a good precedent...  :-(

During the GPLv3 launch a new version of the GFDL has been announced *as
ready to ship* by Moglen.  It will be released soon.  So the GFDL issue
can be set aside, for a moment.  FSF does listen to all comments and
criticisms, but as for all complex matters it takes time to act avoiding
mistakes.  Changing a license is a very complex task, it takes attention
and energy and cannot be done lighthearted.  It should also be clear
that the reason why GFDL has not been updated yet is because GPLv3 was
already in the queue and it had precedence.  I am sure that everybody
agrees that GPL and LGPL are more important than GFDL :)

> So, let's hope I won't throw away mine...

Let us know if that happens, because it shouldn't.  The process is open,
all comments will be taken into consideration and some of them will
become issues that will be analised by Stallman and Moglen.  You can
track your comments and the issues related to your comment on the web site.

> That is true, and was especially true in the pioneer times, when Free
> Software was known to very few people only.
> Now there's a Free Software community, though. I think the concern of
> the core of this community should be taken into account (especially when
> a Freeness issue is raised).

I think that the GPLv3 process is a good compromise between openness and
control of the results.  Apache Foundation recently updated its license
and afaik the Apache community had such an open and participated
process.  Am I wrong?  How would you have done the process?

> Let's hope for the best...

Let's make it happen!  Let's make GPLv3 the best possible license, let's
set the standard.


More information about the Discussion mailing list