"Ours is Ours, Yours is Yours" is gone from the GPLv3 ...
Posted Oct 5, 2006 14:20 UTC (Thu) by cventers
In reply to: "Ours is Ours, Yours is Yours" is gone from the GPLv3 ...
Parent article: Similar in spirit?
(once again, I've got nothing but respect for you, but I don't agree
with your take on this at all...)
I don't think the reach is extending beyond even what the GPLv2 says.
'Intent' is a word about why something was done a certain way. And I
think that there are still plenty of us who believe that the Intent of
GPLv2 was very clearly to preserve Freedoms 0-3, especially given that
the entire opening section of the license persists of talking about these
When we speak of free software, we are referring to
freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make
sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and
charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can
get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use
pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these
Some people seem to assume that the Free Software Foundation is trying
only to make political moves or statements. But unfortunately in our
current world it is becoming clear that some kind of anti-DRM language is
needed to preserve Freedoms 0-3.
Freedoms 0-3 is what the license is really about. It's not
tit-for-tat, as Linus calls it. It may have the tit-for-tat property, or
the fair and square property, but it is a free software license and it's
frankly delusional to try and call it anything else.
What Linus says about "well-behaved parties", at least as much as you
have quoted, has implication but no substance. In a sense, GPL has
always limited licensing to well-behaved parties - the parties
that don't seek to undermine free software! That's why we have a GPL in
the first place. If the license didn't aim to stop people from
undermining free software, it would have no reason to exist -- everyone
could just use BSD.
DRM vendors, whether incidentally or intentionally, are moving on a
path that can undermine what we've all worked so hard for. If the Linux
developers or any other community don't want to stand in their way,
that's totally okay. But please recognize that as one other astute LWN
reader said in another comment on another thread, we won't help them
build the jail with our own code!
It's a free software license from the free software
foundation. But even so, they want your participation. I never really got
a reply from you earlier, but I'm pleading with you to take this LWN
comments discussion straight to the FSF and to bring some of the other
kernel developers with you. The FSF wants your participation, even if
that means disagreeing with them. Even if they don't strike down
everything you disagree with, you are passing up an opportunity to get
involved in the official drafting process which is definitely open. If
you don't take the opportunity, you're (no offense) no better than people
who moan loudly about how bad the politicians suck and then sit on the
couch on voting day.
For crying out loud, Sun Microsystems says the process is open, and
they say they like this new license! And we just learned yesterday that
Nokia also seems to be happy, and says that the DRM provisions in GPLv3
were 'clarified' for them, leaving the impression the license is well on
the way to being agreeable by nearly all parties.
...except the kernel developers, the one community that pointed out it
can't use GPLv3 even if it wanted to. What kind of bizarro world is this?
Why won't you get officially involved?
to post comments)