Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Williams: "it's time to drop the GPL"

[Alexander Terekhov]

Joshua David Williams wrote:
> 
> On 6/17/07, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> >  Everybody else just cares about the legal reasons.
> 
> > The "legal terms" is the only reason a license *exists*. That's what a
> > license *is*, for crying out loud!
> 
> >  If you don't care about the legal side, go and read the free software
> > manifesto. That's the paper you're really arguing about.
> 
> > If you want to argue about the GPLv2 *license*, then you'd better start
> > caring about the legal issues. Because that is what the license is: a
> > _legal_ document.
> 
> IMHO, free and open source software seem to differ on one key point:
> 
> The Open Source Definition wrote:
> 
> > 9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
> >
> > The license must not place restrictions on other software that
> > is distributed along with the licensed software. For example,
> > the license must not insist that all other programs distributed
> > on the same medium must be open-source software.
> >
> > Rationale: Distributors of open-source software have the right
> > to make their own choices about their own software.
> 
> > Yes, the GPL is conformant with this requirement. Software linked
> > with GPLed libraries only inherits the GPL if it forms a single work,
> > not any software with which they are merely distributed.
> 
> The way I understand it, programs licensed under the GPLv3 are *not* open
> source software. FSF is so caught up in their own agenda that they're
> forgetting the whole point - the freedom of choice. The GPLv2 may
> be "conformant with this requirement", but it goes against the ethics of the
> FSF, so we can't expect each new version of the GPL to comply to this right.
> 
> Attacking this so-called "tivozation", IMO, finally draws a distinct line
> between "free" and "open source". We, as open source developers, are not
> politicians or philosophers; we write software, and we wish to publish our
> code under a certain set of ten rights.
> 
> Yes, the GPL is a legal document, but it was written in order to compliment
> the GNU Manifesto by setting legal parameters for which they could publish
> their code under.
> 
> Until now, the GPL (v2) has had the same *legal* paramaters the open source
> developers need in order to do the job we need it to do. We have clearly went
> our separate ways now, so I think it's time to drop the GPL. (See my other
> thread about writing an open source license.)
> 
> Anyways, that's my $0.02.
> 
> --

regards,
alexander.

--
"Live cheaply," he said, offering some free advice. "Don't buy a house,
a car or have children. The problem is they're expensive and you have
to spend all your time making money to pay for them."

        -- Free Software Foundation's Richard Stallman: 'Live Cheaply'