| |||||||||||||
Freedoms granted by the GPLvXFreedoms granted by the GPLvXPosted Oct 18, 2006 15:58 UTC (Wed) by forthy (guest, #1525)In reply to: Freedoms granted by the GPLvX by drag Parent article: FSF should separate GPLv3 changes (Linux.com)
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.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||