[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- PJ's bridge, not political

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- PJ's bridge, not political
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:30:27 +0200

DRM "Misunderstood"
Authored by: PJ on Thursday, July 27 2006 @ 07:39 PM EDT
Hey Linus,

I would appreciate it if you would explain what your
objections are to the definition of source code, so I can
understand it.

As to the process ignoring input, I can tell you that I
offered a suggestion and it's in the draft. And someone
offered the BitTorrent change and it's in the draft.

So I don't think it's accurate to say that they are
ignoring input, although you may feel they are ignoring
your input. I know though from the committee discussions
that they are definitely not ignoring input, including
yours, but it may be a misunderstanding. If you will tell
me your issues so a nonprogrammer can understand, either
here on in an email, I'll gladly try to be the bridge.

That is what Groklaw is trying to be, a way to get the
tech community and the lawyers in sync.

and another PJ...

DRM "Misunderstood"
Authored by: PJ on Thursday, July 27 2006 @ 09:38 PM EDT
Well, you explain your emotions, but not the legal part.

What exactly do you want the license to say that it doesn't now say,
particularly the redefinition of source code part?

I am not political at all, Linus. Not even a tiny bit, so I hear you on
that. But I also see from a legal perspective that the GPL has value
precisely because it forces the unkind and unchivalrous (such as SCO),
shall we say, the folks that really do not want to play fair and equal,
to do so or else.

That isn't politics. It may be to others. But to me it's a legal issue.

If we rely on good will, it doesn't always work, you know, not with big
corporations and sometimes not with small ones. Money is a very big
thing to some, and they want the code, but they don't wish to give back,
and being able to modify the code is one reason it's so truly valuable.
You can make it do what you want it to do.

If you get rid of that, you've lost one of the things that made Linux

I'm not into joining anything. I'm not a member of FSF, for example, but
I don't "belong" to Open Source in opposition, nor do I think that just
having fun is enough when faced with the SCO's of this world.

And I can tell you from a legal point of view that the GPL is the MVP of
the SCO story. If it had not required the things that it does, your code
would be theirs. It's that simple, from my point of view.

That "extremism" if you will is what paid off big time, and I think it's
time for everyone to realize it, and to realize that not everyone is
going to play fair or even wants to. The GPL is what protects the common
pool of code. Nothing else does, that I'm aware of.

>From that standpoint, what Tivo is doing is a fast track to destroying
some of the legal strength of the GPL. I think something needs to be
done to make sure that in the future a Linux could happen again.


P.S. For GNUtian ams, who's questioning authenticity of these missives:

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]