Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Mathieu Roy <yeupou@gnu.org> writes:
> paul cannon <pik@debian.org> a tapoté :
>
>> On Thu, 28 Aug, 2003 at 06:43:48PM -0500, Rick Moen wrote:
>> > "...or (at your [the recipient's] option) any later version." The fact
>> > that "your" refers to the _recipient_ means that Scott's worst-case
>> > scenario of FSF issuing a screwball GPLv3 is not a serious concern
>> > _even_ for work whose licence grants include the quoted phrase.
>>
>> How about this scenario:
>>
>> 1- A hostile group gets control of the FSF (treachery, trickery,
>> bribery, lawsuits, ...?)
>>
>> 2- They release a new version of the GPLv4, which states that "this
>> software should be treated as released into the public domain"
>>
>> 3- All copyleft protection of items licensed with the "(at your option)
>> any later version" phrase disappears.
>>
>> Sort of the "tentacles of evil" thought exercise. This is what I was
>> always worried about when seeing that phrase. Sort of seems like a back
>> door being reserved.
>>
>> Could this even happen?
>
> As long as RMS live, it can't.
You argue that RMS is incorruptible? I present as a counterargument
the GFDL.
> But the GNU licenses are anyway designated to reach a specific goal
> very correctly documented on gnu.org.
The GFDL does not meet the FSF's four freedoms. But oh, look what I
found on www.gnu.org:
The GNU Project was launched in 1984 to develop a complete Unix-like
operating system which is free software: the GNU system.
So the FSF says all these manuals are either not part of the GNU
system, or are software. Still think it's OK for them to not meet the
four freedoms or the DFSG?
> If some people were about to change the licenses in the way you
> describe, they would be discontinuing the GNU project and not be
> entitled to change the GNU licenses.
Heh. You just wait til my brother comes along, he's far larger and
meatier than I am.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Reply to: