Re: GNU License and Computer Break Ins
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.
> If so, I consider myself a reasonably diligent person, and I consider
> other people on this list to be more diligent than myself. Yet, some of
> us missed this rather critical piece of information. In my case, I
> missed it for years. Of course, there were a good number who understood
> already, but for the benefit of the rest of use, I would recommend an
> addition to the GPL's preamble so that this bit of information is as
> widely distributed as the GPL.
The GPL doesn't contain ideological or political arguments for a
bunch of reasons. It's supposed to be easy enough for people to find
out about those (read "Why Software Should Not Have Owners", the GNU
Manifesto, etc.).
> For example, "While using the GPL is a volitional act and takes
> advantage of current copyright laws, the ultimate goal is to undermine
> copyright law to such an extent that the GPL will no longer be necessary
> as all software will then be free."
Making all (generally useful and published) software free is a
long-time public goal of the FSF.
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/why-free.html
The FSF has other interim goals, which are less extreme. People who
don't agree with the FSF's long-term goals still have plenty of
reasons to use the GPL or support the FSF in other ways.
--
Seth David Schoen <schoen@loyalty.org> | And do not say, I will study when I
Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will
down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5
Reply to: