Re: [ox-en] Dangerous changes in the GPL 3.0
- From: Karel Kulhavy <clock twibright.com>
- Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 18:46:35 +0200
On Sun, Sep 25, 2005 at 01:10:33PM [PHONE NUMBER REMOVED], Stefan Merten wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
The article on
says that the new GPL 3.0 may change the rules insofar as changes to
GPL software made locally must be published. I find this a very
* It's a burden to publish each small difference
Consider you have a GPL software which fits your needs but only this
one stupid label on this particular button doesn't look right to
you. You change it but until you publish the change you are not
allowed to use the changed software.
How to publish it? What does a Free Software project do with all the
For this I think such a rule would be impractical and thus make Free
Software less useful.
* FSF tends to rule the world
One of the things I really liked in Free Software and Richard
Stallman's attitude was the free going thing. For instance the
non-discrimination of any kind of endeavor I find really a step in
the right direction. Now Free Software is really successful they say
"Hah, now you are depending on us, now we change the rules of the
game". This is bad style to say the least.
Also, I remember times when there was an Apple license with such a
rule with the enforced giving-back and the FSF didn't like it for
exactly this reason.
"we should promote freedom" is already an attempt to rule the world
- to positively discriminate beahviour showing freedom
"FSF shouldn't rule the world" implicitly says "I want to rule over
FSF and tell her not to rule the world".
That's difficult - freedom is lack of enforcement, and enforcing lack
of enforcement is difficult :)
* It fundamentally introduces exchange into Free Software
This I find the most dangerous development indeed. You are not
longer allowed to do what you like with the software as long as you
do it in your own four walls. If you do something which might be
useful you *must* give it away. This is a form of exchange and on
On the other hand what if some multi-billion-dollar globalized company
takes Linux kernel, does it's own changes, and will use it on 300 000
computers and noone will have access to that, because "that's inside
On the other hand, having to upload 3MB of .tar.bz every time I type
a character in vi is a bit impractical :)
the basis of the Oekonux thoughts I consider this more dangerous
for Free Software than any patent claims.
I only can hope that the FSF thinks again.
Maybe Stallman is suffering the proverbial corruption by power?
May be someone here has an idea of how is the state of affairs right
Contact: projekt oekonux.de