> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Henk Boom
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 11:08 AM
> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??
>
>
> On 16/07/07, Volker Armin Hemmann
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > because gplv3 removes freedom?
>
> As far as I remember from when I read it, it does not take
> any freedoms which the previous versions did not intend to.
> The purpose of the GPL is to protect the 4 freedoms. This
> instalment just closes loopholes in the previous versions
> which would allow these freedoms to be infringed upon.
>
> Henk Boom
> --
The four freedoms:
Freedom 0: The freedom to run a program for any purpose.
Freedom 1: To study the way a program works, and adapt it to your needs.
Freedom 2: To redistribute copies so that you can help your neighbors.
Freedom 3: Improve the program, and release your improvements to
the public, so that the whole community benefits.
For freedom 1 and 3 to work, the code must be open.
Freedom 1 is just as important as the other three. Freedom one is
almost eliminated in GPLv3. Freedom One is the freedom that was
most whole heartedly expressed in the original manifesto.
Freedom 3 is the one that GPLv3 is making most important now.
It does so to the detriment of the other three.
The old GPL licenses say that if you use the code in a public way,
you have to make the code you use available changes and all. That
deals with software and only software. Stallman used to be so set
on THAT mindset (software vs. hardware), that he was in favor of
those groups that didn't want to make the source code of every ROM
chip they made open to the world, on the grounds that certain parts
of firmware are so tied to the hardware as to be indistinguishable.
GPLV3 says, if you want to use code in a public way, you have
to crack open your box so that people can play with it however
they want, and then that potentially compromised box still has
to be able to connect to your network if it connected in it's
unmodified form. That very much deals with the hardware.
Under the spirit of the GPL, one could take code and use what
they could. They still had to have the technical capabilities
to use that code, and understand the platform it was on.
Under the new version, if you don't understand the code, then
something must be wrong with the code. If the code is full of
machine dependant features that cannot compile on another type
of machine, then something must be wrong with the code. Oh, and
these strange assumptions only apply if you are making money off
of the machine that the code was written for. Otherwise no one
will ever notice so they don't care.
Free Software is about Freedom. GPLv3 is about religion. You
are free as long as you do things our way.
That is why I shy away from the GPL licenses. I like the
LGPLv2, but GPLv3 is kind of scary. I want code that I make
free to be free. :P I don't want to say, "It is free if you
are a broke penniless college kid that plans to stay that way."
LGPLv2 allows wide use of code, without heavy demands.
If I by some miracle produce a chunk of code that propels another
entity to the top of their industry, then I have achieved something
Whether I get anything in return from them or not. If they
are able to take what I have produced and make it useful, then
more power too them. If they give back to the community in the
form of code, cash, or even morale support, then that is them
playing the game by our rules. It is good for us and will help
them in the long run.
Even if they don't give back code or cash or a pat on the back,
if they simply say where the code came from, that will help the
community.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
