Paul Serice writes: > Do I read you and others correctly? Is the GPL a strategy designed to > basically reduce the time to zero between when an author publishes and > when the work falls into a GPL-like public domain? (Much like the use > of proprietary operating systems was a strategy when the GNU Project > first started.)
It obviously has that effect on software which is published under the GPL. It doesn't have that effect on other software. > If so, I consider myself a reasonably diligent person, and I consider > other people on this list to be more diligent than myself. Yet, some of > us missed this rather critical piece of information. In my case, I > missed it for years. Of course, there were a good number who understood > already, but for the benefit of the rest of use, I would recommend an > addition to the GPL's preamble so that this bit of information is as > widely distributed as the GPL. The GPL doesn't contain ideological or political arguments for a bunch of reasons. It's supposed to be easy enough for people to find out about those (read "Why Software Should Not Have Owners", the GNU Manifesto, etc.). > For example, "While using the GPL is a volitional act and takes > advantage of current copyright laws, the ultimate goal is to undermine > copyright law to such an extent that the GPL will no longer be necessary > as all software will then be free." Making all (generally useful and published) software free is a long-time public goal of the FSF. http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/why-free.html The FSF has other interim goals, which are less extreme. People who don't agree with the FSF's long-term goals still have plenty of reasons to use the GPL or support the FSF in other ways. -- Seth David Schoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5
