> You could say that ipv5 is kinda like if you made v4-mapped-v6 the only way to use ipv6, didn't do NAT64, and then expanded those to >4 bytes at a later time.
I guess I don't understand. This seems to boil down to: expand the address space, but don't actually use the additional space until a flag day that occurs after every piece of networking equipment on the Internet gets upgraded? Surely there would be even _less_ incentive to upgrade, because instead of getting local benefits that are incomplete until the entire network upgrades, you get _no_ benefits until the entire network upgrades.
This seems strictly worse than the situation we have now, where at least locally, you can reap benefits from IPv6's expanded address space. I benefit from having a routable /56 at home, even though I can't get to it from some legacy networks.
What do you mean when you say IPv5 works "instantly" with v4 routing tables, DHCP, DNS, and NAT? I think you're misunderstanding that any way you slice it, there will be a protocol translation. We already have many protocol translation options for v4<->v6, like NAT64, which I believe was referenced obliquely in the discussion about GitHub.
You should consider, if this "v4 with more bytes" idea works so well, why hasn't it been done already? Why hasn't anyone shown this idea working in practice? I'd say the answer is that, when discussing it in the abstract, it's easy to get confused by the printed address representation and miss that you're building in implicit protocol translations you don't realize have the exact same deployment difficulties as IPv6.
Take DNS as an example- when you say it works "instantly," I assume you mean "v4 works as normal, v5 reads A records and appends a zero byte"- congratulations, you've invented DNS64.
My consumer router uses iptables under the hood, so it accepts a mask in the firewall rule (so e.g. I can do ::0123:4567:89ab:cdef/::ff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff as a target, and when my /56 changes, the rules Just Work™)
In a world where everyone by default had unlimited rights to use, modify, and redistribute software, sure, copyleft would be unnecessary. But we don't live in such a world. You believe users ought to have unlimited rights to do what they want with their software- copyleft hijacks the copyright system to ensure these rights can't be removed downstream. "What's good for the goose" is exactly the rationale behind copyleft- if large corporations can use it to restrict user rights, the community can use it to protect them.
By not supporting copyleft, what you seem to think you're doing is consistently opposing copyright encumberances. But practically speaking, you're just giving up the fight- large corporations can enforce copyright and restrict users, and you don't support fighting back because you believe it would be philisophically inconsistent.
My contention here is that you're wrong, in the sense that we share a goal (software freedom) and your strategy will less effectively accomplish that goal than the one you oppose. Opposing copyleft will not end copyright, but it _will_ give all the benefits of copyright to those looking to restrict user freedom.
It is explicitly _not_ controlling what _users_ do. It is a restriction on _distributors_ of software. As a user of the software, you may use it for any purpose, modify it to your heart's desire, and even redistribute it. You just can't redistribute it and then refuse to give downstream users the same rights.
That is not meaningfully a restriction unless you're trying to unjustly profit off the work of others. The copyright holder doesn't exercise control over users here.
> if people make modifications to the software and keep that private later on, let them.
This is perfectly legal under the GPL. What's not legal is redistributing that software you modified but not giving _your_ users the same rights to modification that you yourself got.
Nothing in the GPL requires you to release or distribute personal modified versions of GPL software.
If by "keep that private later on" you mean "plagiarize GPL code to add to a proprietary program and distribute it," yeah that's not allowed- but unless you're a fan of pilfering the commons for personal profit, this is an unmitigated good feature of the license.
As an aside, copyleft is on the exact same legal foundation as the EULAs you seem to respect. It is extremely confusing that you think copyleft is bad but EULAs which provide significantly more restrictions are good.
Great to see Guix finally cut a new release! Lots of changes since the last release and while Guix users get to see these immediately with `guix pull`, this should get some more visibility for the progress they've made and bump versions packaged for other distros.