[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