Slashdot Mirror
GPL 3.0 Rewrite Drive Is No Democracy
linumax writes "Users will be free to comment on the upcoming complex and technical draft versions of the GNU General Public License 3.0 in an easy way, according to Eben Moglen, general counsel for the Free Software Foundation. However, Moglen said Wednesday, speaking at the Open Source Business Conference here, the rewrite of the GPL is not an election and there will be no voting on its clauses. In a session entitled GPL 3.0: Directions, Implications, Casualties, Moglen said that when GPL 2.0 was promulgated some 14 years ago, very few people cared about it. On the advice of a few dozen people and a couple of lawyers, it was written and released. "That was a fine system then. It is not a fine system now. I expect the process around GPL 3.0, when it begins in some 60 to 90 days' time, to collect a great deal of comment from people on the draft documents... ", He said."
Why bother rewriting the GPL when there are many other fine licenses out there like the BSD license which can be used instead? The FSF should encourage people to use this tried and tested license to ensure their software is fully "open source" in all aspects, including commercial uses.
You created an account just for that comment? I really think you need to get a life.
So let me get this straight. You disagree with the GNU philosophy, a well known and published one. You, based on this disagreement, decide to use another license which does not bind you to parts of that philosophy. Now you complain that your disagreement with the Free SOftware philosophy makes it harder to develop things and you want *us* to change? You can't have it both ways buddy. If you want to use our code, you do so on our terms. If not, you have that right. Just don't complain that our principles aren't as flexible as yours. If you want to be compatible with code produced under the GPL, the onus is on YOU to change to OUR license. Not for US to move to YOUR philosophy.
And by the way, your restatement of the Free Software creed is horrible. Commercial/non-commerical makes no difference. Its wether the software allows the principle freedoms that matters.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
The copyright holder most definitly can be screwed because they have placed the agreement they have with their users under the power of a third party.
The license can become less restrictive, and you dont want it to: Maybe vN+1 will simply be a copy of the BSD license; if you dont want your code to be reused, closed, then you just got screwed because a third party made that allowance for you. Maybe it will have a clause that allows for using the code if they make a donation to The Human Fund in the authors name.
vN+1 could be more restrictive; these restrictions could be ignored by continuing to use vN, true. But these new restrictions might be unacceptable to you, to the point that you no longer want to be associated with the FSF at all. Lets say that vN+1 has a clause that the software isnt allowed to be used in, say, abortion clinics; you're pro-choice, an in a legal sense, it doesnt matter as the clinics can continue to use vN; but in a moral sense it does; your pro-choice friends stop inviting you to parties because you are associated with the enemy. You cant argue "but thats not what I sigined on for" because it is, you said "or later" and those two little words makes you a religious nut job with no respect for women.
Unlikely? Yes. Possible? Yes. Possible to get screwed? Yes.
FTFA-"Lanal" is web-speak for the disclaimer "I am not a lawyer."
Firstly, L doesnt stand for I, I stands for I.
Secondly, its all caps, its an acronym, its not a word.
Maybe if the artical was written by someone with a clue...