On 01/16/08 03:41, Richard Stallman wrote: > If I read and read between the lines you clearly admit you are not > satisfied with the current GPLvX more restrictions will follow. > > We will change the GPL as needed to deal with future threats. > I'm satisfied with GPL v3 now, but our enemies are clever. > I have to presume that they will pull some surprises.
What's surprising or difficult to envision about web services? And where does the word "enemies" come from? You made up rules, people obey them and they still can be your enemies regarding these rules? What's so difficult about admitting that the rules are not sound and GPLvX should be quite different to make them sound, for example without the DRM ruling, to make sure nobody who obeys the rules can become an ennemy? > 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? > > Because the world does not stand still. When I wrote GPL2, I did not > envision tivoization or the Novell-Microsoft pact, so it does not > defend against them. GPLv3 does. So you Balkanize GPL further. And GPLvX doesn't "defend" against web services. What can you do and what possibilities do you see to enforce it? > 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? > > That is very vague, but it doesn't sound like something I would want > to do. You should have peace with the fact that the source code =is= open source, published. You don't respect that, you clearly want too to take privacy of programmers as much down as you can think of. Clearly no respect for programmers, not funny to see. +++chefren
