[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: GPL version 4
- To: Morton Harrow <mharrow%linuxmail.org@localhost>, Kasper Sandberg <lkml%metanurb.dk@localhost>, Miod Vallat <miod%online.fr@localhost>, licensing%fsf.org@localhost, linux-kernel%vger.kernel.org@localhost, rms%gnu.org@localhost, claire.newman%canonical.com@localhost, announce%fsfeurope.org@localhost, misc%openbsd.org@localhost, ubuntu-users%lists.ubuntu.com@localhost, fedora-list%redhat.com@localhost, netbsd-users%netbsd.org@localhost, freebsd-questions%freebsd.org@localhost
- Subject: Re: GPL version 4
- From: Bodo Eggert <7eggert%gmx.de@localhost>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 21:42:42 +0200
Morton Harrow <mharrow%linuxmail.org@localhost> 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.
Main Index |
Thread Index |