[darcs-users] Re: this is not licence advocacy

[Kannan Goundan]

> zooko <at> zooko.com wrote:
> > If it *is* your intention to forbid this hypothetical person from 
> > distributing the resulting program, then you should continue to distribute 
> > darcs under the GPL.  (In fact, perhaps you should remove the "any later 
> > version" clause -- as the Free Software Foundation might someday write a new 
> > version of the GPL which is compatible with the CPL.)
 
Max Battcher <me <at> worldmaker.net> writes:
> This sounds really stupid.  The FSF has intentionally written the GPL 
> for copyleft.  (Which is why the GPL is often referred to as the 
> "manifesto that thought it was a license".)  They are not in some weird 
> later version going to remove the copyleft.

Isn't the CPL also a copyleft license?  Wouldn't it be possible for the GPLv3 to
remain copyleft but also be compatible with the CPL?

Aside: Has anyone wondered what would happen if someone (say, MS) gradually
infiltrated the FSF and created a permissive GPLv4?  The "any later version"
clause that some projects use looks a lot like a security hole. :)