[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: GNU License, Again

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: GNU License, Again
Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 13:19:55 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1.50 (gnu/linux)

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <> writes:

>    > So Richard talks explicitly about the _goal_ of the GPL, and he
>    > does this immediately before listing a number of projects that
>    > set out to create proprietary projects, and then were forced by
>    > their use of GPLed software to license them under the GPL.
>    So the _goal_ is to ultimately get all software free, since said
>    freedom is considered a vital right under the GNU philosophy (if
>    not _the_ core right of the GNU philosophy).
> That is the goal of the GNU project and the FSF, but not of the GNU
> GPL.

So the GNU GPL has been written by a goal different from the goals of
the GNU project and the FSF.  Fascinating.

>    Hence the reason for requiring that any distribution of derivatives
>    to have their full source code released under the GPL _in toto_,
>    not just the GPL pars -- so that new code then enters the pool of
>    free software and therefore contributes to the freedom of all
>    users.
> Again, no, it is to keep said software free.  The GPL does not require
> you to distribute; if it did, you'd have a point, but it doesn't.  If
> the goal of the GNU GPL was to create a larger pool of free software,
> then the GNU GPL would require _all_ modifications to become public,
> but it doesn't, you are not required to distribute your hacks.

Care to explain why the GPL preamble states:

    Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
    have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge
    for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can
    get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use
    pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do
    these things.

How can "new free programs" be meant to refer only to "existing free

>   So I guess I'm in good company too.
> It seems that you, like David, are only capable of hostility, and
> must resort to name calling, attacks, strawmen, and what not.
> Clearly, if you have to resort to such things, then you are not in
> "good" company.

You are confusing "disagreement" with "hostility, name calling,
attacks, strawmen and what not".

That one can't see your writings about the GPL's goals coincide at all
with the statements in the GPL itself, in the FSF's publications and
in Stallman's articles about them as well as with the opinions of
other GNU maintainers and developers, does not constitute any of those
things you are lavishly labelling people with.

David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

reply via email to

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