On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 03:56:03PM -0700, larry price wrote: > 1. see http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2005/09/22/gpl3.html for the > RMS version, the basic takeaway is that there would be some form of > perfomance clause, where you have to feed back your changes to the > codebase even if you are not distributing the modified software, but > only performing it publicly. It is not certain that this will be a > feature of GPLv3 and RMS is sounding fairly sane on the issue.
I don't have time to read Richard Stallman's latest rant on people trying to circumvent software freedom, but I will point out that before he argued to me strongly that the right to private use of private modifications. I responded that a license need not specify this as it is a provision of existing Copyright law, under the provisions of fair use. He gave several good reasons why that was not specific enough, and I was convinced. This idea is an attempt to place restriction on code that is not distributed, but whose output is, specifically targetting abuses by certain large names in the "free software world", such as VA Software. I have my concerns that this issue is more about publicity and politics than protecting any real freedoms, given that it has the potential to impact that freedom he argued so long was absolutely essential (convincingly!) I've not made up my mind yet because I haven't read the current rant, but that's my thinking process. _______________________________________________ EUGLUG mailing list euglug@euglug.org http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
