Dear gentlemen (and included list-members),
Let me first introduce myself. My name is Morton Harrow, senior GNU/Linux consultant in the London metropolitan area. I have been around in the Open Source world since the early beginning. I am very happy with the spirit and efforts of the Free Software Foundation (FSF).
As the name mentions ?free?, one would think this organisation embraces real freedom. I can't help but feel that the FSF has made a mistake with the release of the third version of the GPL (GPLv3). This license restricts the freedom and usage of open source software for governments, companies and end-users alike.
Linking from other software which is not regarded by the FSF as free software, is not allowed by this license. I can't help but wonder if this is the freedom the FSF intensions. Real free should be that users are allowed link any software against GPL licensed software, without restrictions. But the current ?freedom? restricts the spirit of Richard M. Stallman's original vision on a free world.
We propose to release as soon as possible, version 4 of the General Public License.
The GPL version 4 will accept every other license, accepted by the Open Source Initiative as open source. Corporate usage of GPL released software should be possible without restrictions. Linking from closed source software to GPLv4 software and libraries will be permitted. GPLv4 software can be shipped in (commercial) closed source software. Only this and the original authors need to be mentioned. Also, I believe the copyright of the FSF software should be transferred to the United Nations. As ?human knowledge belongs to the world.?
Our planned release date of GPLv4 is 15th September 2008. The first software to be released under the terms of this new license, will be a continuation of the stalled ReiserFS project. As the FSF headers allow software to be released under the terms of the GPLv2 or higher, we will prepare automatic relicensing of GPLv2 and GPLv3 software to the GPLv4.
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me.
With kind regards,
Morton Harrow
=
--
Powered by Outblaze
ROTFL
I've double-checked my calendar - today isn't April 1st.
Please don't feed the troll.
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 02:09:53 +0800, Morton Harrow said:
> The GPL version 4 will accept every other license, accepted by the Open
> Source Initiative as open source. Corporate usage of GPL released software
> should be possible without restrictions. Linking from closed source software to
> GPLv4 software and libraries will be permitted. GPLv4 software can be shipped
> in (commercial) closed source software. Only this and the original authors need
> to be mentioned. Also, I believe the copyright of the FSF software should be
> transferred to the United Nations. As ?human knowledge belongs to the world.?
You might want to check your DNS server for cache poisoning. I think you
meant to send this to a *bsd.org list, but it ended up at vger.kernel.org
by accident...
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Miod Vallat" <[email protected]>
> To: "Morton Harrow" <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: GPL version 4
> Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:06:23 +0000
>
>
> Shouldn't GPL versions follow the bright example of TeX, and thus the
> next version be 3.1?
Hi Miod,
Most of the people who have replied seem to be missing the point.
In addition to the announcement of the GPLv4, I was trying to discuss
another point.
The Free Software Foundation and their mission ("Since 1985 we've been
fighting for essential freedoms of computer users", please see
http://www.fsf.org) are not in line with their GPLv3.
I see with pain in my heart that the GPLv3 doesn't actually give the
users of GPLv3 software the liberty and freedom the FSF has been
fighting for. Instead they are forced to play by the strict set of
terms the GPLv3 provides.
For example, as a liberated computer user, I might like to incorporate
a high quality piece of GPLv3 software in a commercial product,
which for bussiness strategic reasons happens to be closed source software.
But the GPLv3 denies my claim for this freedom to do this.
I fail to see how that strengthens me in a Free and Liberal Software World.
With kind regards,
M.H.
=
--
Powered by Outblaze
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 05:31:15 +0800, Morton Harrow said:
> I see with pain in my heart that the GPLv3 doesn't actually give the
> users of GPLv3 software the liberty and freedom the FSF has been
> fighting for. Instead they are forced to play by the strict set of
> terms the GPLv3 provides.
You missed an important philosophical point. In Richard Stallman's world view,
it isn't the user's freedoms that matter, it's the *software*s freedom.
> For example, as a liberated computer user, I might like to incorporate
> a high quality piece of GPLv3 software in a commercial product,
> which for bussiness strategic reasons happens to be closed source software.
> But the GPLv3 denies my claim for this freedom to do this.
Right, because doing so would impact the *software*s freedom.
> I fail to see how that strengthens me in a Free and Liberal Software World.
Sometimes, it's not about you.
On Wednesday 2008-07-16 20:09, Morton Harrow wrote:
>We propose to release as soon as possible, version 4 of the General
>Public License.
Good luck with the FSF's lawyers.
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 05:31:15AM +0800, Morton Harrow wrote:
> In addition to the announcement of the GPLv4, I was trying to discuss
> another point.
Piss off.
1) if you read the text of GPL, you will notice that "later
versions" are explicitly limited to the versions published by FSF.
Which makes your version rather irrelevant.
2) in case you've managed to miss it, Linux is *NOT* under "v2 or
later".
3) discussion of FSF, their mission, their ideals or their imaginary
pet polka-dot goats does not belong here.
4) pain in your heart or in any other parts of your anatomy that might
have been involved in the creation of that wankstain is, quite frankly, none of
our concern.
Morton Harrow wrote:
>>Shouldn't GPL versions follow the bright example of TeX, and thus the
>>next version be 3.1?
To quote Fred Weigel, they should be
3
3.1
3.14
3.141
3.1415
3.14159
--dave
--
David Collier-Brown | Always do right. This will gratify
Sun Microsystems, Toronto | some people and astonish the rest
[email protected] | -- Mark Twain
(905) 943-1983, cell: (647) 833-9377, (800) 555-9786 x56583
bridge: (877) 385-4099 code: 506 9191#
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 05:41:50PM -0400, [email protected] wrote:
> You missed an important philosophical point. In Richard Stallman's
> world view, it isn't the user's freedoms that matter, it's the
> *software*s freedom.
Oh, great. First poeple bend the term "freedom" (like FSF does),
then they talk about the freedom of bits and bytes (software).
Now let's start a "free teapots" campaign.
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 05:31 +0800, Morton Harrow wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Miod Vallat" <[email protected]>
> > To: "Morton Harrow" <[email protected]>
> > Subject: Re: GPL version 4
<snip>
> a high quality piece of GPLv3 software in a commercial product,
> which for bussiness strategic reasons happens to be closed source software.
> But the GPLv3 denies my claim for this freedom to do this.
So you, as a liberated computer user, would like to, for business
strategic reasons, remove liberty from other computer users..
> I fail to see how that strengthens me in a Free and Liberal Software World.
Oh wait but thats not all, you expect these liberal computer users to
give you the chains which will then be used to hold them..
Oh and btw, for business strategic reasons, i now need to clean up my
keyboard due to an unfortunate drink accident involving me splurting out
my beverage all over my desktop when reading your post :)
>
> With kind regards,
> M.H.
>
> =
>
>
------- Blind-Carbon-Copy
to: [email protected]
Subject: Re: GPL version 4
From: "Julian Stacey" <[email protected]>
Organization: http://berklix.com BSD Unix Linux Consultancy, Munich Germany
User-agent: EXMH on FreeBSD http://berklix.com/free/
X-URL: http://berklix.com
In-reply-to: Your message "Thu, 17 Jul 2008 04:12:50 +0200."
<1216260770.10312.21.camel@localhost>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:31:07 +0200
Sender: [email protected]
Please all, do Not massively cross post this flame thread.
Julian
- --
Julian Stacey: BSDUnixLinux C Prog Admin SysEng Consult Munich http://www.berklix.com
Mail plain ASCII text. HTML & Base64 text are spam. http://www.asciiribbon.org
------- End of Blind-Carbon-Copy
On Jul 16, 2008, "Morton Harrow" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I see with pain in my heart that the GPLv3 doesn't actually give the
> users of GPLv3 software the liberty and freedom the FSF has been
> fighting for. Instead they are forced to play by the strict set of
> terms the GPLv3 provides.
> For example, as a liberated computer user, I might like to incorporate
> a high quality piece of GPLv3 software in a commercial product,
You can do that. There are lots of commercial products containing
GPLv3 software out there.
> which for bussiness strategic reasons happens to be closed source software.
> But the GPLv3 denies my claim for this freedom to do this.
You are mistaken in several levels.
1. Disrespecting others' freedoms is not a matter of freedom, it's a
matter of power.
2. Nothing in the GPL prevents you from doing any of this. If there
is something that prevents you from doing this, it's copyright law.
You won't find prohibitions in the GPL.
3. If you're unable to combine third-party GPL-incompatible software
with GPL software, it's because the third party prevented you from
doing this, and you accepted it. Don't blame the GPL for your
acceptance of such terms.
4. If you decide to not release your own code under the GPL, even
though this stops you from releasing the program you wrote with help
from other authors who chose the GPL, that's your decision. Don't
blame the GPL for the consequences of your own decisions.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, David Collier-Brown wrote:
> Morton Harrow wrote:
>>> Shouldn't GPL versions follow the bright example of TeX, and thus the
>>> next version be 3.1?
>
> To quote Fred Weigel, they should be
> 3
> 3.1
> 3.14
> 3.141
> 3.1415
> 3.14159
>
> --dave
> --
> David Collier-Brown | Always do right. This will gratify
> Sun Microsystems, Toronto | some people and astonish the rest
> [email protected] | -- Mark Twain
> (905) 943-1983, cell: (647) 833-9377, (800) 555-9786 x56583
> bridge: (877) 385-4099 code: 506 9191#
Nah. Should be
GPL V-infinity
That way there won't be any more.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.6.22.1 on an i686 machine (5588.29 BogoMips).
My book : http://www.AbominableFirebug.com/
_
****************************************************************
The information transmitted in this message is confidential and may be privileged. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Analogic Corporation immediately - by replying to this message or by sending an email to [email protected] - and destroy all copies of this information, including any attachments, without reading or disclosing them.
Thank you.
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:17:46 EDT, "linux-os (Dick Johnson)" said:
> Nah. Should be
> GPL V-infinity
> That way there won't be any more.
Any mathematician worth their salt will point out you have that bass-ackwards.
infinity means there is *always* one more.
Morton Harrow <[email protected]> wrote:
> I see with pain in my heart that the GPLv3 doesn't actually give the
> users of GPLv3 software the liberty and freedom the FSF has been
> fighting for. Instead they are forced to play by the strict set of
> terms the GPLv3 provides.
>
> For example, as a liberated computer user, I might like to incorporate
> a high quality piece of GPLv3 software in a commercial product,
> which for bussiness strategic reasons happens to be closed source software.
> But the GPLv3 denies my claim for this freedom to do this.
Would you grant me the freedom to give away your commercial product for free
or to incorporate it in my commercial product? Probably not. You'd instead
grant me less freedom. The GPL protects me from this.
> Would you grant me the freedom to give away your commercial
> product for free
> or to incorporate it in my commercial product? Probably not. You'd instead
> grant me less freedom. The GPL protects me from this.
Except it doesn't. With or without the GPL, if he still makes his commercial
product, you will still be unable to give it away or incorporate it in your
commercial product. If he doesn't make it, that's just less choice for
everyone.
It may be a poorer product. It may cost him more to develop it. It may wind
up not existing. But in no case will will you wind up with the freedom to
give away his commercial product. So the GPL actually won't protect you from
this at all.
It will just result in him producing a poorer, more expensive, less
compatible product -- or none at all. Either way, everyone else will have
fewer (and/or poorer) choices. Everyone loses. Nobody wins.
Note that had he been able to incorporate the GPL code in his commercial
product, he may have passed bug fixes and improvements back to the GPL
project. He would not have had to, of course, but if his product just uses a
GPL component or library (that doesn't compete with the larger product),
there's no reason for him not to. Everybody could have won.
It's always possible he may instead elect to make a GPL'd project. This may
allow him to produce a higher-quality product in less time. It may allow
others to build on his work, and result in more freedom for everyone. He may
make less money, but maybe not. The question of whether the "everybody
loses" or the "lots of people, maybe everybody, wins" case is more common is
an empiric one.
I have seen an awful lot of "everybody loses" cases. I've seen very few
"everybody wins" cases.
DS
Could you guys please remove [email protected] from the cc
of this mail? Nobody here cares.
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:47:46 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<[email protected]> said:
> > Would you grant me the freedom to give away your commercial
> > product for free
> > or to incorporate it in my commercial product? Probably not. You'd instead
> > grant me less freedom. The GPL protects me from this.
>
> Except it doesn't. With or without the GPL, if he still makes his
> commercial
> product, you will still be unable to give it away or incorporate it in
> your
> commercial product. If he doesn't make it, that's just less choice for
> everyone.
>
> It may be a poorer product. It may cost him more to develop it. It may
> wind
> up not existing. But in no case will will you wind up with the freedom to
> give away his commercial product. So the GPL actually won't protect you
> from
> this at all.
>
> It will just result in him producing a poorer, more expensive, less
> compatible product -- or none at all. Either way, everyone else will have
> fewer (and/or poorer) choices. Everyone loses. Nobody wins.
>
> Note that had he been able to incorporate the GPL code in his commercial
> product, he may have passed bug fixes and improvements back to the GPL
> project. He would not have had to, of course, but if his product just
> uses a
> GPL component or library (that doesn't compete with the larger product),
> there's no reason for him not to. Everybody could have won.
>
> It's always possible he may instead elect to make a GPL'd project. This
> may
> allow him to produce a higher-quality product in less time. It may allow
> others to build on his work, and result in more freedom for everyone. He
> may
> make less money, but maybe not. The question of whether the "everybody
> loses" or the "lots of people, maybe everybody, wins" case is more common
> is
> an empiric one.
>
> I have seen an awful lot of "everybody loses" cases. I've seen very few
> "everybody wins" cases.
>
> DS
>
Richard M Stallman <[email protected]> writes:
> Freedom means having control of your own life. Using a proprietary
> program means giving the developer power over you. "More choice" in
> surrendering your freedom is not more freedom, and it does not make a
> better world.
"Breathing the air means giving anyone else power over you."
Even with proprietary programs you still have the control of
your life: noone forces you to use this or that program.
> It will just result in him producing a poorer, more expensive, less
> compatible product -- or none at all.
>
> Ideally, it will be none at all. A proprietary program is a negative
> contribution to society.
Oh, really. Programs are dearer to your heart than people.
What you say sounds luddist: it is better to force everyone to
perform routine tasks manually instead of saving time by minor
investment in development of tools.
> One less proprietary program means one less
> job of replacement on our list, and it could leave the field open for
> a free program to succeed.
You speculate on what it could or could not, yet many people
prefer to look at what is and what is not.
> Just think how much better off we would be
> if Microsoft Windows had never been developed.
How? How exactly? I don't believe you, show me facts.
> But suppose he does it anyway, without using our code. That could be
> just the handicap that enables a competing free program to be superior
> in convenience, just as it always is in ethics.
Put ethics aside, it is subjective and differs from place to place.
In which way your "free" "replacement" is more convenient than Adobe Photoshop?
How do you explain simple fact, that photographers prefer the latter,
even when they tried your so-called "free" so-called "replacement".
Haven't these arguments been made before? Yet the FSF, Open Source and
proprietary developers still exist. There are obvious advantages in each
approach.
As a developer involved in many types of software I can appreciate what each
solution has to offer.
Isn't it fruitless to debate this ideology, again and again and again... We
will choose the approach that best suits our particular situation and
interests.
Let's not instigate another war over ground that has already been "carpet
bombed".
------------
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Aleksej Saushev
> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 1:34 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: GPL version 4
>
>
> Richard M Stallman <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Freedom means having control of your own life. Using a proprietary
> > program means giving the developer power over you. "More choice" in
> > surrendering your freedom is not more freedom, and it does not make a
> > better world.
>
> "Breathing the air means giving anyone else power over you."
>
> Even with proprietary programs you still have the control of
> your life: noone forces you to use this or that program.
>
> > It will just result in him producing a poorer, more expensive, less
> > compatible product -- or none at all.
> >
> > Ideally, it will be none at all. A proprietary program is a negative
> > contribution to society.
>
> Oh, really. Programs are dearer to your heart than people.
>
> What you say sounds luddist: it is better to force everyone to
> perform routine tasks manually instead of saving time by minor
> investment in development of tools.
>
> > One less proprietary program means one less
> > job of replacement on our list, and it could leave the field open for
> > a free program to succeed.
>
> You speculate on what it could or could not, yet many people
> prefer to look at what is and what is not.
>
> > Just think how much better off we would be
> > if Microsoft Windows had never been developed.
>
> How? How exactly? I don't believe you, show me facts.
>
> > But suppose he does it anyway, without using our code. That could be
> > just the handicap that enables a competing free program to be superior
> > in convenience, just as it always is in ethics.
>
> Put ethics aside, it is subjective and differs from place to place.
>
> In which way your "free" "replacement" is more convenient than
> Adobe Photoshop?
> How do you explain simple fact, that photographers prefer the latter,
> even when they tried your so-called "free" so-called "replacement".
>
>
>
>
On Sun, 2008-07-20 at 12:34 +0400, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
<snip>
> > Just think how much better off we would be
> > if Microsoft Windows had never been developed.
>
> How? How exactly? I don't believe you, show me facts.
You have got to be kidding..
>
> > But suppose he does it anyway, without using our code. That could be
> > just the handicap that enables a competing free program to be superior
> > in convenience, just as it always is in ethics.
>
> Put ethics aside, it is subjective and differs from place to place.
>
> In which way your "free" "replacement" is more convenient than Adobe Photoshop?
> How do you explain simple fact, that photographers prefer the latter,
> even when they tried your so-called "free" so-called "replacement".
I find it horrifying that you believe that simply because lots of
people(maybe even the majority) does/use something, and even prefer it,
means its the right thing. I suggest you look around the world, reflect
on it, and then read your own post.
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 05:31:15 +0800, Morton Harrow said:
>
>
>> I see with pain in my heart that the GPLv3 doesn't actually give the
>> users of GPLv3 software the liberty and freedom the FSF has been
>> fighting for. Instead they are forced to play by the strict set of
>> terms the GPLv3 provides.
>>
>
> You missed an important philosophical point. In Richard Stallman's world view,
> it isn't the user's freedoms that matter, it's the *software*s freedom.
>
>
I don't think it is that bad - the intent is for the software to be
freely available for *people* to use. It is actually about our freedom.
regards
Mark
All this GPL blah blah is a huge waste of time. It comes down to this;
nearly everyone on this list thinks that the GPL is criminally stupid so
stop trying to convince people here that it does not suck dog ass.
Lets not have this retarded debate again, *we* know *you* are wrong, end
of story.
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:12:40AM +1300, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 05:31:15 +0800, Morton Harrow said:
>>
>>
>>> I see with pain in my heart that the GPLv3 doesn't actually give the
>>> users of GPLv3 software the liberty and freedom the FSF has been
>>> fighting for. Instead they are forced to play by the strict set of
>>> terms the GPLv3 provides.
>>>
>>
>> You missed an important philosophical point. In Richard Stallman's world view,
>> it isn't the user's freedoms that matter, it's the *software*s freedom.
>>
>>
>
> I don't think it is that bad - the intent is for the software to be
> freely available for *people* to use. It is actually about our freedom.
>
> regards
>
> Mark
>
Please. The GPL v4 mail was started by a troll. I am surprised that
anyone from the linux camp was taken in and keeps feeding the troll.
There's no GPL v4 (yet) and anyone who thinks there is, is a moron.
Now, can we leave a dead thread dead? Zombies should be exterminated
on sight.
Brainz......
--
http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk
"This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity."
-- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation.
"Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse - external or
internal - is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks
factory where smoking on the job is permitted." -- Gene Spafford
learn french: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1G-3laJJP0&feature=related
Marco Peereboom wrote:
> All this GPL blah blah is a huge waste of time. It comes down to this;
> nearly everyone on this list thinks that the GPL is criminally stupid so
> stop trying to convince people here that it does not suck dog ass.
>
> Lets not have this retarded debate again, *we* know *you* are wrong, end
> of story.
>
LOL - sorry Marco, I was replying for the benefit of folks on the Ubuntu
list ... I didn't notice the huge collection of *other* lists in the cc
(I'm guessing you are *not* on the Ubuntu list).
Of course, you are free to dislike the GPL in all its forms...
regards
Mark
moving [email protected] to Bcc
Please do not post discussions of GPL politics to OpenBSD mailing lists.
You know we have different views, so cross-posting is pure trolling.
-d
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 05:31:15 +0800, Morton Harrow said:
> >
> >
> > > I see with pain in my heart that the GPLv3 doesn't actually give the
> > > users of GPLv3 software the liberty and freedom the FSF has been
> > > fighting for. Instead they are forced to play by the strict set of
> > > terms the GPLv3 provides.
> > >
> >
> > You missed an important philosophical point. In Richard Stallman's world
> > view,
> > it isn't the user's freedoms that matter, it's the *software*s freedom.
> >
> >
>
> I don't think it is that bad - the intent is for the software to be freely
> available for *people* to use. It is actually about our freedom.
>
> regards
>
> Mark
>
>
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 08:38:35AM -0500, Richard M Stallman wrote:
> I don't think it is that bad - the intent is for the software to be
> freely available for *people* to use. It is actually about our freedom.
>
> You have it right. Copyleft licenses defend freedom for all users by
> stopping middlemen from stripping it away.
Please don't spam the FreeBSD list with such propaganda. That's a
personal request -- I don't pretend to speak for the entire list.
--
Chad Perrin [ content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
Quoth Naguib Mahfouz: "You can tell whether a man is clever by his
answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions."