I really tried resisting replying to this but this is simply too much. On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 06:27:24AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > And who controls GPL? What will you do when all GPL software and > subsequent > developments are "kept" on servers out of reach of users (BSD > situation...)? > > You are making an extreme projection, which I doubt will happen. > I am going to urge people to avoid using servers to do their > own computing.
I am not making an extreme projection. The FSF for all intents and purposes outlived its usefulness 10 years ago. It was reinvented to remain relevant. It'll fade away just like any other organization that has no real use anymore. Then what? To remain in power the FSF needs to collect ownership of as much software as possible. That's where things like GPLv3 come in because your organization is losing control. Retain control as long as possible! > > However, as regards the release of source code for those modified, > we've already taken a step to deal with that. We have already > published the GNU Affero GPL which deals with the issue that someone > might use an improved version on a public server and never release his > changes. This is such a dumb argument that I don't even know where to start. The anti-tivo argument is shallow because there is no difference between a TiVo that boots linux and a CPU that needs micro code. The "they will close the code" argument is 100% a farce; one can not close code, it is still out there on the mirrors; licenses can not retroactively be revoked. You have regurgitated some lame arguments on ethics however you clearly don't subscribe to them. Then you go around and claim ignorance on topics that you are supposed to be an expert on. Your arguments have therefore lost all credibility. I can go on and point out all fallacies in your arguments but I am pretty sure we have covered that ad nauseam. > > What will be in GPLv4? > > GPLv4 will be basically the same as all previous versions: it will > grant the four freedoms to everyone, and protect them for everyone, as > best as we can achieve. We will change only details. Those so called freedoms are covered by copyright law. You really don't need a 10000 word license. The only thing you are trying to protect is the relevance of the FSF. > > Why more rights to the user than to the creator? > > By "the creator", do you mean the author of a program? When the author > releases a program under the GNU GPL, he gives users a subset of his > legal rights. So your question is based on a misunderstanding. No it is not. Copyright takes good care of author. The GPL revokes copyright holders rights and therefore is a bad license for people authoring software. It is however a fantastic license for large corporations to give away code without giving it away. This is an awesome marketing tool. As usual your arguments are backwards. You say you protect one group but really you are protecting self interests. > > Why do you Balkanize the open source community without any sound reason? > > There is no such thing as the "open source community". Open source > supporters are part of the free software community, which was built by > the free software movement starting in 1983. This sentence does not even make sense. If I read this correctly you are claiming 100% credit of all Open and Free software (man do I hate these made up words) efforts because you started a foundation that has something to do with FOSS. The only credit you get to claim is the fact that there was no user space available when Linus launched Linux and it filled a nice niche. There was all kinds of open/free/gratis code available long before you came up with the FSF. You got to piggy back Linus' work and the fear of the outcome of the BSD legal battle in California. You didn't do that much; you were simply lucky that at that time you had something that did something. All this grandeur that *you* did it is quite frankly delusional. You got lucky, that's it. > > If "balkanize" refers to incompatible licenses, that would not happen > if everyone followed our licensing recommendations. If all free > software were released under "GPL version N or later", as we > recommend, then all free software would be license-compatible. This is the most insulting thing you have said so far. Now you are challenging everyone's intelligence who does not agree with your license. Wow, I really thought that I had heard it all from you. I know this will sound foreign to you but are you aware that the GPL is not everyone's first choice? Are you aware that large corporations are using the GPL to pretend to be open source friendly? The GPL has a virus clause and by that definition it is a balkanizing license. People will not agree with you and by throwing a tantrum saying boohoo you should agree with my license is childish at best and power mongering for your irrelevant foundation at worst. All your code are belong to FSF!
