Itend to agree that RMS himself realises the limitations of the GPL. Let us not
forget that it was the FSF that came out with the LGPL. Indeed, Stallman and
the FSF sometimes advocate licenses even less restrictive than the LGPL as a
matter of strategy. A prominent example was Stallman's endorsement of the use
of a BSD-style license by the Vorbis project for use in its libraries.
-Toby
P.S. As you can see from the last line, what matters at the end of the day is
software freedom, not which license you use. The Modified BSD license(not the
Original BSD license) is compatible with the GNU GPL, and it says so on the FSF
website. I fail to understand what the hullaboo is about. A rose, called by any
other name, would smell just as sweet.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ModifiedBSD
Here is a mail set by RMS
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 22:23:38 -0700 (MST)
From: Richard Stallman <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [open-source] [Fwd: [icecast-dev] Xiph.org announces Vorbis Beta 4
and the Xiph.org The GPL is not an end in itself; it is a measure to protect
our
freedom. In general I would rather see software copylefted, which is
one way of defending users' freedom against one particular danger. In
the case of Ogg/Vorbis, there is a bigger danger from another
direction: the danger that people will settle on MP3 format even
though it is patented, and we won't be *allowed* to write free
encoders for the most popular format. To overcome the inertia that supports MP3
format will require
strenuous effort. Even if we do our utmost to encourage everyone to
replace MP3 format with Ogg/Vorbis format, it is not certain they will
do so. Consider how long we have been trying to replace GIF with PNG.
Ordinarily, if someone decides not to use a copylefted program because
the license doesn't please him, that's his loss not ours. But if he
rejects the Ogg/Vorbis code because of the license, and uses MP3
instead, then the problem rebounds on us--because his continued use of
MP3 may help MP3 to become and stay entrenched. Thus, my agreement with the
idea of a lax license in this special case
is just as pragmatic as my preference for the GPL in most cases. In
both cases it is a matter of how we can attain freedom.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 09:32:21 +0530
From: Siju George <[email protected]>
To: "This List discusses GNU/Linux & GNU, GPL Software"
<[email protected]>
Subject: [ILUG-Cochin.org] Stallman: GPL doesn't guarantee software
freedom
Hi,
Finally even he understands his folly!
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10379280-16.html
--Siju
_______________________________________________
Indian Libre User Group Cochin Mailing List
http://www.ilug-cochin.org/mailing-list/
http://mail.ilug-cochin.org/mailman/listinfo/mailinglist_ilug-cochin.org
#[email protected]
