Slashdot Mirror
RMS Previews GPL3 Terms
An anonymous reader writes "In a recent interview, ESR shocked a lot of people when he said,
'We don't need the GPL anymore.' Federico Biancuzzi contacted RMS, founder of the Free Software Movement and initial developer of the GNU system, to talk about the past, the present, and the future of the GNU GPL. Among other things, they discussed the new clauses of the upcoming GPL version 3."
...acknoledges the need for copyrights and/or IP laws. RMS is finally being consistent.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
What do you mean?
If you release a program that implements such a command, GPL 3 will require others to keep the command working in their modified versions of the program.
Isn't it a slippery road to go down when the license mandates a feature-set? It seems to make a mockery of the 'free to modify' mantra. In fact it seems to be 'not free' in that sense.
This new version, and later ones will confuse, fragment, and even make illegal many contributions and/or projects in the future. I think this will prove to be a weak link in Free Software as people try to mix GPL2 with GPL3 projects, and make a mess of things. Whatever benefits there are of GPL v3, they will be overshadowed by this mess it will create.
It's 2005, not 1985. We've learned a lot in the last 20 years.
Yeah we learned we need it more than ever before. Just imagine the SCO history without the GPL.
If you rigorously cling on to values (like GPL and free speech) people think you're a zealot. Until the same people realize they themselves were idiots. GPL is what got Linux this far -and not it's technical superiority over whatever- and it remains needed to prevent doctor evils screwing people over.
There's also the freedom to refrain from using the GPL and stop whining.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
Recognizing the need for the GPL acknowledges the need for copyrights and/or IP laws. RMS is finally being consistent.
RMS has always been very consistent on this point. In his view, copyright is a bad thing because it restricts freedom. He views the GPL as necessary because the bad thing exists, and has always described the GPL as a form of legal judo, fighting the enemy with his own strength.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Try *reading* the GPL. Its pretty much as simple as could be. It's way simpler than Microsoft's EULAs for example, even though the GPL gives you some freedoms and the EULAs just restrict your rights.
GNU was always about the 'Free Software' ideal, NOT Open Source... get it right!
Copyright only governs COPIES, not the services provided by those copies. If I am not distributing actual copies of the software (even if I may be distributing the service it provides), then copyright doesn't have any legal bearing, and the copyright holder can't legally force me to stop providing the service, even if I'm doing something he doesn't like (he could if I were to ever try to distribute the software as well, however). He is free, however, to politely *ASK* that I comply with his wishes, but it still has no legal weight.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The GPL is an anchor of freedom. It has nothing to do with technical merits of ones software. It has everything to do with making software freely available and open in communal fashion. I'd like to think of the GPL as a digital library of function; with protection for not only the developer but the user. Similar to fountains of knowledge that have existed through out history allowing human-kind to prosper. It should be noted that all communes and libraries of the past that operated as a hub of knowledge have been almost entirely destroyed with few exceptions. I find it hard how one would do this with the digital medium but moving along.
ESR seemingly doesn't understand that if it was simply about technical merit and time. In another 20 years we'll look back and it'll be a different story. Isn't history one of ESR's strong points? Here is another reason why ESR can't be coined as a forefront in opensource or what we all deem to be some form of movement. His views are totally not inline with freedom and freedom is what this is about. You release under GPL as a form of solidarity? How about in the future you refrain from releasing under the GPL and release under the license that you think is best. Solidarity and cowardness go hand in hand when you're in the minority.
RMS on the other hand needs to learn that one can't force freedom. You can only protect it and the primary goal should be protection for the user and developer. The external parties should not matter beyond that. If they benefit in fashion from the GPL then one should not prevent that. This doesn't mean that the GPL should never change; I have faith that RMS will learn better to adapt the GPL to current environments as well as forseeing the road ahead.
None the less my personal views are that RMS is a leader and ESR as a mumbling imbecile and sideliner. As much as people dislike RMS and fight and rally against him. He never sidelines and he never stands in solidarity with a position he disagrees with. He stands firmly in his belief for freedom and provided the framework on which I make my living, how I learned to make my living and how I even enjoy myself every now and then.
So, unlike the rest of you; after I pickup my girl from the airport i'll have a beer in the name of RMS. Cheers; and thanks.
Subject basically says it all. The so-called "Trusted Computing Platform" involves nothing more than having public-key encryption implemented in hardware, under the control of the BIOS. It can (in theory) be used for DRM, but can also be used merely to enhance the security of your system. The so-called "vendor key" may not have any practical, non-evil uses, but nobody is forcing you to use it. Personally, I'd like to have a system with TC hardware. (As long as any "remote control" functionality can be disabled, which, I suspect, would be hard NOT to arrange.)
DRM, on the other hand, is pretty much an unmitigated evil. However, that said, I think the approach taken by the GFDL is the wrong one. I'd prefer to see distribution on DRM-controlled platforms allowed as long as unrestricted versions are available to anyone who gets a DRM'd copy. In other words, I'd like to see DRM treated by documentation licenses more-or-less the way binaries are treated by the GPL.