Linux is not Linus's work. It is the work of all the people who have contributed anything to the GNU/Linux system. Perhaps you could argue that the term "Linux" is Linus's, since he (I'd assume), coined the term, but then you'd have to argue that people can own words, which I'd disagree with (even though the law is such).
"I (and obviously a lot of other people) do not want to have "Linux" as a name associated with unacceptable (or borderline) behaviour, and it's important that "Linux" doesn't get a name of being associated with scams, cybersquatting, etc etc." If I wanted Linus to choose what behavior is unacceptable and what is not, I would have elected him to Congress. If there's a scam, it is already illegal and will be shutdown anyway. If it's cybersquatting, and you want it to be illegal, contact your congressman. If enough people agree with you, you might just get your way. My real problem, is "etc etc". What if Linus decides that worshipping Budha is "unacceptable behavior"? It's just not his job to determine that. "Linux" is not free if a single person has the right to determine when it's right or wrong to use it.
No, Microsoft is betting that most people will not back out, but they know some will. Every time you go to MSN's web page it costs Microsoft money, but they are betting that enough people will click on ads to make it worth it. Is it wrong for you to go to MSN's web page and not click on the ad? Is it stealing to watch TV and to change the channel when the commercials come on? Is it wrong to use a credit card which gives cash back and pay it off every month?
Free beer. It is not open at all in the GPL sense of the term: "Specifically the files may NOT be used to construct any kind of on-line database (except for individual personal use). Clearance for ALL such on-line data resources must be requested from Internet Movie Database Ltd" - http://us.imdb.com/Copyright
The regular GPL already handles this, as a database compilation is already copyrighted. The problem is that releasing a database under GPL allows someone to still download the entire database, modify it, and then use it for private use (INAL, but I think this is true). That makes it quite prohibitive to release many types of databases under this licence (essentially making it the same as the BSD licence). In any case, a DGPL would probably need to have more restrictions, not less as you suggest. I'd love to see databases released under GPL, it would be a perfect candidate as they are so quickly evolving and there's always more data to be added. Imagine a GPLed movie database with every movie and actor in it, that anyone could use as a backend to her website, but if someone adds entries to the database and then "distributes" that via incorporating it into her search scripts, the person would have to release the entire modified database. The only restriction I would want to add to the GPL is that one must release the database in raw format, if she modifies it and then makes it available through a web site. INAL, so maybe this is already true, it probably would still be nice to spell that out.
Slashdot Mirror
I betcha it's California...
Linux is not Linus's work. It is the work of all the people who have contributed anything to the GNU/Linux system. Perhaps you could argue that the term "Linux" is Linus's, since he (I'd assume), coined the term, but then you'd have to argue that people can own words, which I'd disagree with (even though the law is such).
"I (and obviously a lot of other people) do not want to have "Linux" as a name associated with unacceptable (or borderline) behaviour, and it's important that "Linux" doesn't get a name of being associated with scams, cybersquatting, etc etc."
If I wanted Linus to choose what behavior is unacceptable and what is not, I would have elected him to Congress. If there's a scam, it is already illegal and will be shutdown anyway. If it's cybersquatting, and you want it to be illegal, contact your congressman. If enough people agree with you, you might just get your way. My real problem, is "etc etc". What if Linus decides that worshipping Budha is "unacceptable behavior"? It's just not his job to determine that. "Linux" is not free if a single person has the right to determine when it's right or wrong to use it.
No, Microsoft is betting that most people will not back out, but they know some will. Every time you go to MSN's web page it costs Microsoft money, but they are betting that enough people will click on ads to make it worth it. Is it wrong for you to go to MSN's web page and not click on the ad? Is it stealing to watch TV and to change the channel when the commercials come on? Is it wrong to use a credit card which gives cash back and pay it off every month?
Free beer. It is not open at all in the GPL sense of the term: "Specifically the files may NOT be used to construct any kind of on-line database (except for individual personal use). Clearance for ALL such on-line data resources must be requested from Internet Movie Database Ltd" - http://us.imdb.com/Copyright
The regular GPL already handles this, as a database compilation is already copyrighted. The problem is that releasing a database under GPL allows someone to still download the entire database, modify it, and then use it for private use (INAL, but I think this is true). That makes it quite prohibitive to release many types of databases under this licence (essentially making it the same as the BSD licence). In any case, a DGPL would probably need to have more restrictions, not less as you suggest. I'd love to see databases released under GPL, it would be a perfect candidate as they are so quickly evolving and there's always more data to be added. Imagine a GPLed movie database with every movie and actor in it, that anyone could use as a backend to her website, but if someone adds entries to the database and then "distributes" that via incorporating it into her search scripts, the person would have to release the entire modified database. The only restriction I would want to add to the GPL is that one must release the database in raw format, if she modifies it and then makes it available through a web site. INAL, so maybe this is already true, it probably would still be nice to spell that out.