On 01/14/08 12:27, 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 see more revenue from our services, where we keep up servers for others, every moment. People who bought servers from us in the past would love to hire them, and yes yes yes, with maintenance. > I am going to urge people to avoid using servers to do their > own computing. You need programs for that, most new programs are offered as web services, out of reach of your GPLv0/1/2/3. .. > 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. If I read and read between the lines you clearly admit you are not satisfied with the current GPLvX more restrictions will follow. If I see your first line above I understand, but maybe better to ask it directly: How come you cannot fix a license for once and for all? I admit the BSD license has changed somewhat in time, it became =less= restrictive. You clearly want more restrictions. Am I right that it could end with the FSF looking over the shoulder of anybody who uses GPL to see if something is changed or added while being used for a third party? I presume you would love it if also scripts that connect GPLvX programs will automatically be GPLvX too? > Why more rights to the user than to the creator? > > By "the creator", do you mean the author of a program? Yes, or the creator of a change or extra line to a program. Someone who creates something in general. Preferable pushing the edge! > 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. Since you mention the word "misunderstanding": Why don't you mention that (s)he also "gives" the clear =restriction= to open up all further changes? > Why do you Balkanize the open source community without any sound reason? > > There is no such thing as the "open source community". "There is ..", to your opionion I may hope?? I cannot remember anyone else denying that there is an open source community. People and companies who deliver publicly available sourcecode with various less or more restrictive licenses form 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. I know a lot of "open source supporters" who want no connection at all with the movement you started (don't ask around her at [EMAIL PROTECTED]), if only for your denying above of any =restrictions= in the GPLvX. Your publishings only uses pluses and no minuses concerning "freedoms". Every of your four freedoms have accompanying restrictions equally big/bold if you like it or not. If you keep denying that it's not difficult to envision: Every subsequent GPLvX version will undoubtedly be more restrictive while you will need to scream louder and louder that it brings "more" freedom. Compare that with BSD, simple message, no screaming necessary, no serious changes in the license to be foreseen, its decent. > 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. Did you recommend that since version 0 of GPL? I doubt so, that would have awakened more people at the right moment. Now with GPLv4 in the works people start thinking "hey where will it end up"? Who knows what will be in GPLv5? Is it possible that GPLv5 will be 100% compatible with the 2 clause BSD license? It's clear you doubt most GPLv0/1/2/3 will be behind servers but let's think and say it is so. In that situation for both users and programmers there is no difference between BSD and GPLv0/2/3 !!! My estimate is that the open source community will still take up and produce clever ideas and produce open source code. If it's not published (open) it doesn't exist and cannot be build upon by the community (world!). On the other hand, if most code is used for services on servers, there is often almost no way to check if GPLvX is used. Enforcing GPLvX in a services world seems a little bit clueless to me. You will need investigating searches by the police et cetera. You want too much and without a sound reason, only Balkanizes the community. BSD is good enough for the users of open source and clearly better for programmers and companies who use and produce code. Gives them maximum privacy and a better chance of earning money with it. +++chefren
