[Fsf-friends] Comments on the GPLv3 Process
Nishan Naseer
nishan.naseer@[EMAIL-PROTECTED]
Mon Jul 31 15:07:40 IST 2006
Hello,
There has been a discussion going on.
Linus seems to be unhappy with gplv3.
he has declared that linux kernel will remain at gplv2
The dicussion is
here<http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20060727140038810&title=Sorry%252C%2520Linus&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=465804>
________
Regards
Nishan
On 7/31/06, Dr. Nagarjuna G. <nagarjun at gnowledge.org> wrote:
>
> On 7/31/06, Ramanraj K <ramanraj.k at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > It is reported at http://news.com.com/2061-10795_3-6099985.html that
> > Linus Torvalds has sharply criticised GPLv3 draft terms as "inferior"
> > to GPLv2.
> >
> > Several elements in the GPLv3 draft unfortunately make it plain that
> > the shift is from "freedom" to "slavery", "hate" and "fear". If the
> > GPLv3 ever comes into effect with such terms, it may even make
> > non-free licenses look very respectable.
> >
> > I recently modified the licensing terms of the Calpp project that I am
> > maintaining, so that modifications to the Calpp code base would be
> > only under GPLv2 until further notice, to ensure a comfortable level
> > of freedom for its developers and users.
> >
> > The most important reason why most people appreciate the GPL are the
> > four freedoms:
> >
> > 0: freedom to run the program, for any purpose
> > 1: freedom to study how the program works with source code and adapt
> > it to your use
> > 2: freedom to redistribute copies and
> > 3: freedom to improve and release improvements to the public.
> >
> > The GPLv2 has implemented the freedoms as license conditions giving
> > rights to licensees to enjoy the freedoms listed above, and has not
> > only stood the test of time, but has created a good ecosystem of free
> > software where developers, users, businesses and governments have
> > benefited.
> >
> > GPLv3 should ideally be towards giving better rights to developers and
> > licensees to make the freedoms more effectively usable and enjoyable.
> > Many clauses in the draft GPLv3 are unintelligible and ambigious,
> > giving open invitations for interpretations. Having provisions for
> > "additional terms" would make the GPL a non-standard license, and even
> > worse, they would only help to curtail rights and make the freedoms
> > illusory.
> >
> > If the GPLv3 mission is alter the well known freedoms 0 to 3
> > substantially, then it is fairly important to discuss that in the
> > first place, before the actual license terms are discussed.
> >
> > It is premature to discuss the GPLv3 draft, without arriving at a
> > broad consensus on what fixes are required to the basic freedoms
> > enjoyed by developers and licensees. I would request RMS and the FSF
> > to first make a restatement of freedoms 0 to 3 before proceeding
> > further with the GPLv3 process.
>
>
> It is not clear how the freedoms 0 to 3 will be curtailed by the
> GPLv3. If
> you have seen some modifications that do s, it will be useful to raise an
> alert. Can you explicate the words, or cluases that curtail the four
> freedoms?
>
> Nagarjuna
> _______________________________________________
> Fsf-friends mailing list
> Fsf-friends at mm.gnu.org.in
> http://mm.gnu.org.in/mailman/listinfo/fsf-friends
>
--
__________
Regards
nishan.
More information about the Fsf-friends
mailing list