RMS: The GNU GPL Is Here to Stay (O'ReillyNet)

RMS: The GNU GPL Is Here to Stay (O'ReillyNet)

Posted Sep 23, 2005 23:18 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
Parent article: RMS: The GNU GPL Is Here to Stay (O'ReillyNet)

All the talk about the practicality of OSS and developement models and this and a that is nice and all. It's very smart to be pragmatic about things...

But RMS's interview just reminds me of the primary reason that I use Linux-based operating systems and Free software whenever I can:

Because they respect my freedom.

I like that. I like that alot. No paying more for more features, no expiring contracts, no weird activation scemes. No having to warez software I can't afford, no having to buy new copies or search around for 'cracks' just becuase my brother wants a new computer (etc etc etc)

No messing around with all that _nastiness_.

It's worth more to me then all the tea in china. The only major restriction is that I have to respect the freedom of other people to use the software like I can use it. Having it dirt cheap, secure, and of generally pretty high quality is icing on the cake.

For the webserver stuff. It makes sense that since it's publicly being used the source code should be publicly be aviable. I don't see how having a _command_ to force the download of the source code makes sense.. depending on the webserver and agreement with the internet connection provider it can end up being a very expensive thing to do. I can see maybe making sure that directions on how to obtain the source code should be publicly aviable.

Like for example if I am google or whatever and I decide to upgrade to the GPLv3 license for whatever software that is GPL and is publicly used.. then I could stick a GPL license on the legal page of the website along with instructions to mail a check or money order containing 2 bucks to so-and-so address and I'll receive a cdrom or dvd containing the source code in 7-10 business days. (which is perfectly valid behavior for distributing software under the current GPLv2 license, as I understand it (I am not a lawyer))

That way using the GPLv3 licensing isn't going to put any extra undo stress or increase the cost of using the code for google and yet it allows anybody interested in the source code to easily obtain a copy of it.

Google could probably easily afford it, but much smaller companies can sometimes run out of bandwidth pretty quickly.

It would suck to introduce a easy way to perform a DOS attack on software that's enforced thru the freaking license.

---

(Log in to post comments)