Joshua David Williams wrote: > > On 6/17/07, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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' _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss