[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Linus: "FSF, 2006: it depends on what the

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Linus: "FSF, 2006: it depends on what the definition of 'use' is"
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 14:10:45 +0200

In comments to
(FSF Responds to Misunderstandings about GPLv3)

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 25 2006 @ 10:57 PM EDT

I already actually replied to PJ in private (and in a separate email 
to her I promised that I would try to behave well, even if I do tend 
to find it hard to be too polite), but I might as well comment on 
this "FSF announcment" here too, since for once I'm on topic! I knew 
it had to happen evenually! Yee-haaw!

Does anybody else think that the FSF is weasel-wording, when they 
now say that they don't restrict the "use" of the software. It's not 
a restriction on "use", when they say that you can't enforce a 
specific version of it. No, it's now about restricting "distributing 
it while controlling what you can do with the software".

Yeah, and those deep-fried potato strips are really not "french 
fries", they're "freedom fries", so it's ok.

Clinton, 1998: "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is"

Bush, 2005: "it depends on what the definition of 'torture' is"

FSF, 2006: "it depends on what the definition of 'use' is"

Let the lawyerese word definition games begin! The rules are: the 
common meaning of the word has no actual relevance, the only thing 
that matters is if you can weasel yourself out of a tight spot.

We are indeed not all lawyers, and as only a lawyer would tend to 
weasel out of things by trying to re-define what a common word like 
'use' actually means, maybe that is just as well...

(I also think that they are being very misleading when they say that 
they will respect the decision of anybody who wants to stay with the 
GPLv2. They say that now, but people reported to me that Eben Moglen 
was at least discussing ways of trying to change the kernel license 
against my wishes. Now that the main kernel developers showed some 
solidarity and they realize that it would look horribly stupid to 
even try, they suddenly "respect our decisions". Suu-ure.)

We now return you to your scheduled off-topic discussions. Thank you 
for your patience.



reply via email to

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