[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Linux and GPLv2

Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> writes:

>> Such language is fine as long as the copyright holder and the license
>> author are the same entity.  New versions of the license are likely to
>> reflect changes in the opinions of the authors, and they have every
>> right to make provisions for a modified license to automatically apply
>> to already released works.  The danger arises when people start
>> out-sourcing the writing of licenses to third parties.  The FSF has
>> its own agenda, and has little reason to consider the opinions of
>> others, who just happen to use their license texts, when writing the
>> next version.
> A couple years ago, this would all have been patently false.  The FSF
> has a very strong interest in their notion of "freedom" being considered
> reliable, and having the community trust them to remain consistent

There is no single "the community", sharing a single opinion on
"freedom".  There are many different views out there, and some recent
moves from FSF have been in a direction away from a large enough
number of people, with loud enough voices, to make it noticeable.

Måns Rullgård

Reply to: