Freedoms granted by the GPLvX

Posted Oct 18, 2006 15:58 UTC (Wed) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link]

This rant seems to have the main concerns in it. Unfortunately, all the arguments are mere babbling. I can't see any stringent logic in it, but I can see personal relation problems. For example, the strength of the GPL is outlined against the BSDL, and the strength is that people contribute code to GPL'd projects because it could not be taken out of the free software universe like BSDL code. On the other hand, people contribute to GPL'd projects because they found a loophole that allows them to do exactly what they could have done with BSDL'd code.

Please forgive me, but that's nonsense. People who like to have a BSDL'd code base please should use a BSDL'd code base, not a loophole in the GPLv2. BTW: IMHO there is no such loophole, it's only questionable where you could successfully sue TiVo. In countries where in case of doubts the intention of the license is valuated, TiVoization is illegal with GPLv2 as well, since the intention is clearly violated. In other countries, you can try with the "scripts" bit, but you may fail.

Some part of the Linux community is pretty ignorant to the subject of licenses. Like Linus Torvalds, who first didn't put Linux under GPL, and then seemed to miss what it realy meant. He only sees the effect, not the cause, why it was such a success. That's why RMS is correct that these people don't value freedom, they don't even understand a word.

BTW Betrayal: Linus "betrayed" all the many contributors up to 2.4.0-test-something, when he single-handedly added a note that Linux is "GPLv2 only". Actually, from a legal point of view, all he did is to declare that this is the condition under which he redistributes the code he got from others, so there's really not much of a point - he always had the right to choose the GPL version. This doesn't mean that he can't change his mind, it also doesn't mean that someone else changes his mind, and creates a GPLv3 Linux. Maybe a few files in Linux are actually marked as GPLv2 only, but the rest is either completely unmarked by the original author (thus "GPL any version") or marked explicitely as "version 2 or any later".

But that's a pretty moot point, as you can't discuss this matter with people who simply fail to understand what the GPL is about: It's about the four freedoms.

Posted Oct 18, 2006 17:59 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]

When Mike Tiemann wrote the first implementation of GNU C++, his employer claimed rights to the code and their lawyers were investigating some kind of "user does the link" trick to allow them to sell the code as proprietary software, even though it was a GCC derivative. The FSF pushed back and let it be known that there would be legal action. The result is that the company gave up and allowed Tiemann to contribute the code to the FSF. If this hadn't happened, there would be no GNU C++ compiler, or there would be a greatly inferior one (to get the compiler in the shape it is in today required hundreds of man-years of paid labor, and that work wouldn't have been done if corporate lawyers had succeeded in undermining the GPL). There would be no KDE.

When Steve Jobs ran NeXT, they tried the same thing with the Objective-C compiler they built on top of gcc; here the user-does-the-link hack was easier since Objective-C adds far less to C than C++ does. Again, thanks to a behind-the-scenes power play, there's a free Objective-C compiler and a GNUstep environment for those who liked NeXT's stuff.

Posted Oct 18, 2006 21:23 UTC (Wed) by RareCactus (guest, #41198) [Link]

EXACTLY.

Can you give me even one example of a practical developer in IT or embedded systems who likes this new license. No-- everyone realizes that it's just going to make it even harder to get corporate support for these projects. The only people who favor it are the politicos. And sometimes it seems like they do all the talking.