Re: Where can I order the source-code of Knoppix?
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 11:48:31AM +0300, Markus Laire wrote:
> On 8/2/06, Shane Geiger <sgeiger@ncee.net> wrote:
> >Is it just me, or does anyone else think the GPL needs to be updated to
> >take into consideration that the Internet is now widely used? Security
> >risk: Klaus, you could get DDoS-ed via snail mail.
> >
> >:-)
>
> Well, GPL is currently being updated. (See http://gplv3.fsf.org/ )
>
> Also, recent Draft-2 did add some new ways to give the source-code,
> e.g. section 6.b1
>
Actually, the last GPLV3 draft that I have read, made things much worse.
Apart from the fact that you are no longer allowed to write GPL system
software for DRM-capable computers, it becomes very hard to distribute
source and binary separately on different media, i.e., the apparently
"desired" case is (in the Knoppix case) to deliver a CD or DVD that
consists of 25% usable binaries, and 75% sources to create these
binaries. There are very few people who would want a Knoppix that mainly
consists of obsolete sources. The "3 years written statement" does not
seem like a valid option anymore.
There are some other oddities in this draft that so far convinced me to
stay with GPLV2 for the future. Things like personal preference and
political beliefs (like software patents and DRM, which we all dislike)
should NOT be part of a legal document that only has the purpose of
legally defining distribution and useage policies of software.
I did add some comments to the draft, however, the entire draft seems to
me like it should be stripped from unnecessary stuff that do not belong
into a software license, and probably rewritten from scratch. It's
sometimes good to do this. ;-)
Why can't the GPL be as short and yet definite as, for example, the BSD
license? There are just a few sentences that are really needed for a
legally binding license, to do what the GPL is (or was) designed to do.
But let's talk about this again when the next draft is out.
-Klaus
Reply to: