Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 08:40:15PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > 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.
I can't find any information on FSF's organization or bylaws, but I
understand the IRS requires non-profit 501(c)(3) corporations to have
approved articles of organization. I don't expect that the FSF's says
anything like "As long as Richard Stallman is alive, he must always be
in complete control of this organization."
Although, knowing RMS, I could be wrong. Anyway, he won't live forever,
will he?
I think RMS has done a great deal of good, but he's not all-powerful. I
hope that it can be demonstrated that no hostile persons could ever take
control of the Foundation or its assets, but I don't know enough about
relevant law to understand how that could be ensured.
Since you seem to know, would you care to elaborate?
> But the GNU licenses are anyway designated to reach a specific goal
> very correctly documented on gnu.org. 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.
I bet small changes could be made to those stated goals while still
having them remain under the stated purposes filed with the IRS.
Alternately, that stated purpose could be changed, if the new one was
still allowed for a 501(c)(3). (How about, "We give away lots of
software for free with no strings attached"?)
> The advantages of the "or any later version" is bigger than the
> possibility of such a GPLv4, IMHO.
What are those advantages?
--
.------------------------------------------------------------.
| paul cannon pik@debian.org |
| FFAL (far from a lawyer) http://people.debian.org/~pik/ |
Reply to: