| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
The GPLv3 draft does not impose any use restrictions -- it imposes *modification* restrictions.The GPLv3 draft does not impose any use restrictions -- it imposes *modification* restrictions.Posted Sep 27, 2006 16:02 UTC (Wed) by JoeF (guest, #4486)In reply to: The GPLv3 draft does not impose any use restrictions -- it imposes *modification* restrictions. by Jel Parent article: Some GPLv3 clarifications from the FSF
Well, if you had better arguments than accusing me of being unethical...
(Log in to post comments)
The GPLv3 draft does not impose any use restrictions -- it imposes *modification* restrictions. Posted Sep 27, 2006 16:13 UTC (Wed) by Jel (guest, #22988) [Link] I didn't accuse you of being unethical. I said that the position you'retaking on this issue is unethical. There's a difference. One is an attack against you, whilst the other is just an analysis of an issue, which you will not take personally if you're objective. As for the quality of my argument... the burden of proof is on you; you're the one claiming that GPLv3 is somehow different from GPLv2, despite the authors saying that it's a logical continuation, and me agreeing with them. Anyway, without wanting to cause offense, I don't find this discussion very interesting, so I'm going to leave it here.
The GPLv3 draft does not impose any use restrictions -- it imposes *modification* restrictions. Posted Sep 27, 2006 17:16 UTC (Wed) by JoeF (guest, #4486) [Link] Well, your analysis of the issue is deeply flawed, then.The issue is if the GPLv3 would restrict the use of a GPLed program. And it seems that it does. That makes the current GPLv3 draft unfree. I am sorry if you are unable to see that.
The GPLv3 draft does not impose any use restrictions -- it imposes *modification* restrictions. Posted Sep 27, 2006 17:39 UTC (Wed) by Jel (guest, #22988) [Link] Well, again, I disagree, and stand by my points. Take them or leavethem.
|
|
||||||||||||