The FSF is a special case
The FSF is a special case
Posted Feb 1, 2010 2:23 UTC (Mon) by dlang (guest, #313)In reply to: The FSF is a special case by emk
Parent article: Canonical copyright assignment policy 'same as others' (ITWire)
2. it all depends on your definition of 'similar in spirit', some people feel that they have already violated that trust with the GPLv3
Posted Feb 1, 2010 3:00 UTC (Mon)
by corbet (editor, #1)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Feb 1, 2010 17:30 UTC (Mon)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link]
Posted Feb 1, 2010 7:05 UTC (Mon)
by emk (subscriber, #1128)
[Link]
1) He wants to provide as many users as possible with the rights to
2) He has zero interest in helping developers of proprietary software,
The GPLv3 may not be what Linus wanted, but it is absolutely consistent
You may disagree with RMS (I often have in the past), but his actions are
FWIW, the FSF commits itself to something rather stronger than "similar in spirit." They say exactly which rights will remain with the code. One might still not want to sign code over to the FSF, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a very different deal than signing it over to a corporation which intends to release proprietary versions.
The FSF is a special case
The FSF is a special case
Understanding RMS
examine, modify and redistribute software.
Tivoized embedded systems, or DRM. Under certain very limited
circumstances he will occasionally choose a non-copyleft license, but only
when it has a direct and clear advantage for (1).
with what RMS wants: Allowing users to modify the software they use. In
the future, for example, you can expect RMS to become increasingly
bothered by Apple-style "App Stores" and by hosted web applications.
not terribly hard to predict.