I went to MIT for the Free Software Foundation Associate members
meeting last weekend.  I asked Stallman the question of whether the
FSF planned to contact various individuals who were using dual
licenses and encourage them to participate in commenting on GPLv3.

He sort of yelled at me a lot.  Big surprise.  You might be able to
find the recordings of this online sometime soon.

I talked to some other FSF members, including Executive Director Peter
Brown, and their suggestion was to encourage community members to come
use the comment system, and that they'd consider more formal outreach
programs for the second draft.

So, here I am making a suggestion that maybe is based on a bit of
paranoia.  We're already having enough of a hard time explaining the
disjunctive license of Ruby... it'll be a lot harder to explain if
some people start using GPLv3 and others stick with GPLv2 when the
final draft rolls around.

Should the ruby community get active in commenting on GPLv3 in hopes
of making it possible to switch the ruby license to use it (alongside
the current, more permissive terms of course), or should we be
focusing on making a Ruby license that stands on it's own, or should
we just jump this hurdle down the line when we get to it?

My main cause for concern is that I really rely on the GPL part of the
license, since the terms Matz wrote don't seem to be an established
legal document.  I will probably want to use GPLv3 alongside Matz's
terms for my software when it comes out, but I don't want people to be
any more confused than they have to about what the "License of Ruby"
means.

So... now I've gone and confused myself, but basically... I'm just
concerned about hybrid Ruby licenses using both GPLv2 and GPLv3
skulking around out there in the somewhat near future, and am hoping
that we think about it before it sneaks up on us.