Re: GPL version 4

[Adam Hoka <adam.hoka%gmail.com@localhost>]

Richard M Stallman wrote:

> Only the Free Software Foundation can release versions of the GNU
> General Public License.  And the automatic relicensing provision
> applies only to future versions released by the Free Software
> Foundation.
> 
> The GNU GPL was not designed to be "open source".  I wrote it for the
> free software movement, and its purpose is to ensure every user of
> every version of the program gets the essential freedoms.  See
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html for
> more explanation of the difference between free software and open
> source.

All right, then please correct others calling it such.

> In private, the GNU GPL lets users link GPL-covered code with anything
> whatsoever.  However, if they distribute such a combination, the whole
> combination must be released as a whole under the GPL.  This makes sure
> that users of the combination have freedom.

Even if this restriction prevents it from to be released to the *public*?
Se keeping it closed source is OK, but releasing it as part of a differently
licensed open source software is not. The users must be very happy about it.

> This has been true for all versions of the GNU GPL.  In version 3 we
> have relaxed it slightly in some harmless but useful ways.

And restricted the way some major and long existing Open Source projects
can't use recent GPL code anymore without doubt and fear.

> If you want to use a simple permissive license such as the X11 license
> for your code, just go ahead.  It is a free software license (see
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html), so the FSF will say
> this is basically ok.

Again, GPL restricts us if we do. So we shouldn't use such software?
We are not users? We can't have our freedom?

--
Adam