On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 12:22:51AM -0400, Ken Snider wrote: > Brandon Low wrote: > >Well, it's moot any way, since I have no applicable code, but you are > >right, it doesn't impact Freenet the same way that it does Linux, my > >concern is more one of compatibility with GPL2 distributions as > >discussed in the linux kernel position statement. > > > >The GPL3, as the GPL2 is often accused of being, but is not in practice, > >is a viral license, that is that there are some cases in which as > >written, it would require a user of the license to release _other_ > >property under a compatible license. > > This is untrue, and a serious misunderstanding of GPLv3. The fact that it > is being propagated as FUD frankly astounds me.
There's a lot of FUD around. There's a lot of FUD about darknet being inherently insecure, for example. :( > > From the FSF's clarification (http://www.fsf.org/news/gplv3-clarification): > > === > > 2. In order to honor freedom 0, your freedom to run the program as you > wish, a free software license may not contain "use restrictions" that would > restrict what you can do with it. > > Contrary to what some have said, the GPLv3 draft has no use restrictions, > and the final version won't either. > > GPLv3 will prohibit certain distribution practices which restrict users' > freedom to modify the code. We hope this policy will thwart the ways some > companies wish to "use" free software -- namely, distributing it to you > while controlling what you can do with it. This policy is not a "use > restriction": it doesn't restrict how they, or you, can run the program; it > doesn't restrict what they, or you, can make the program do. Rather it > ensures you, as a user, are as free as they are. > > Contrary to what some have said, GPLv3 will not cause a company to > "lose its entire [software] patent portfolio". It simply says that if > someone has a patent covering XYZ, and distributes a GPL-covered program to > do XYZ, he can't sue the program's subsequent users, redistributors and > improvers for doing XYZ with their own versions of that program. This has > no effect on other patents which that program does not implement. > > Software patents attack the freedom of all software developers and > users; their only legitimate use is to deter aggression using software > patents. Therefore, if we could abolish every entity's entire portfolio of > software patents tomorrow, we would jump at the chance. But it isn't > possible for a software license such as the GNU GPL to achieve such a > result. > > We do, however, hope that GPL v3 can solve a part of the patent > problem. The FSF is now negotiating with organizations holding substantial > patent inventories, trying to mediate between their conflicting "extreme" > positions. We hope to work out the precise details of the explicit patent > license so as to free software developers from patent aggression under a > substantial fraction of software patents. To fully protect software > developers and users from software patents will, however, require changes > in patent law. > > === > > --Ken. > _______________________________________________ > Support mailing list > Support at freenetproject.org > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support > Unsubscribe at > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support > Or mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/support/attachments/20060927/54584fba/attachment.pgp>
