Re: GNU License and Computer Break Ins
Seth David Schoen wrote:
> 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.
Yet another poorly worded question on my part. I think better wording
would have been: Is the GPL just a stopgap ... ? And I believe you
answered this in the last section of your message when you say that
"[m]aking all (generally useful and published) software free is a
long-time public goal of the FSF."
I just re-read that page, and now I know why I was so utterly clueless.
If you go to that page thinking it is a page that is arguing for the use
of GPL, you'll leave it thinking that's all it does.
Given my poor performance on this thread, I shouldn't be one to
criticize, but even the title should be changed from "Why Software
Should Not Have Owners" to "Why Software Must Not Have Owners," and
the part about the law, it would be helpful if it was made clear that
the argument is not just for opting out but for actually changing it.
Of course, this is no excuse for my own ignorance. That section about
it being morally wrong to refuse to copy a proprietary program should
have raised a red flag. Also, debian-legal has been open to me for
many years, and I did not avail myself of it.