On 05/12/2007, Matt Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > The idea of the 'tivoisation' clause is to ensure that if you buy a > piece of hardware that runs GPL licensed software, that the source code > made available to you, by the manufacturer can be modified and run on > the hardware. > > The issue with Tivo was, they'd give you the code, but if you wanted to > run your own binaries on the unit, you couldn't.
What about their "freedom to use the software for *any* purpose"? ( http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) (emphasis mine) Or does that not extend to purposes that the FSF doesn't like? Coming in GPLv4 a clause stating that Microsoft can't use GPL'd code internally without releasing changes? Just because it's discovered that Microsoft is using GPL code but not distributing it, so doesn't need to share it's changes. This will be known as Microsoftisation. Targeting specific actions by specific people or companies is a dangerous path to start down. > Full disclosure: I'm intellectually bias against the GPL for other > > reasons, so take anything I say on the matter with that in mind. > > Do tell. > > Disclaimer: I'm a campaigns manager at the Free Software Foundation. I really don't want to get bogged down in a license flamewar, so please don't take anything I say the wrong way. At the basic level I find the GPL to be hypocritical, claiming to be free whilst imposing restrictions of it's own. This is the answer I gave to someone who mailed me off list asking the same question: "I dislike it's viral nature, I don't believe that it's free to make other people adopt your license. I also distrust the "or any later version" clause, I find changing terms and conditions unilaterally after they have been agreed to be unfair. Both of the above would be fine if the FSF and RMS stopped claiming that the GPL is free, in an ordinary license they would be perfectly acceptable but from self proclaimed crusaders of freedom and good I find them hypocritical. I suppose that's my real objection to the GPL. IMO the licenses that can claim to be truly free are the BSD and similar other permissive licenses. I make no judgment on whether either is "better" though, they are both tailored for different circumstances." Disclaimer: I'm a campaigns manager at the Free Software Foundation. The FSF is an organization with a noble goal and I admire it in many ways, but (there's always a "but"), and this may sound harsh, but it's what I feel and perceive, why have you let it become a cult of personality around thee ego of RMS? The FSF needs to be bigger than one person, currently (from the outside) it seems to be being used as a tool to further the agenda of a single individual.
