Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > http://groups.google.com/group/linux.kernel/msg/a8f1cd22169e9daf > (Subject: An Ode to GPLv2 (was Re: GPLv3 Position Statement))
[...] > And thus spake PJ in response: > "GPLv2 is not compatible with the Apache license. It doesn't cover > Bitstream. It is ambiguous about web downloads. It allows Tivo to > forbid modification. It has no patent protection clause. It isn't > internationally useful everywhere, due to not matching the terms of > art used elsewhere. It has no DMCA workaround or solution. It is > silent about DRM." > > Exactly! > > That's why the GPLv2 is so great. Exactly because it doesn't bother > or talk about anything else than the very generic issue of > "tit-for-tat". What Linus fails to understand is that the GPL is not a philosophical statement, but a legal document. As a legal document, it has to pinpoint judicially identifiable actions and regulate them. Whatever is not regulated, is not worth anything legally. Warm and fuzzy does not work as a legally binding license. One has to spell out all areas where "tit for tat" can be undermined to a fatal degree. Nothing else works. We are currently just seeing the beginning of DRM sickness. In 10 years of time, Linus is likely to sing a different tune. I am glad that RMS has _foresight_ enough to cater for the problems when they _start_ appearing. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
