On 7/31/06, Ramanraj K ramanraj.k@gmail.com wrote:
It is reported at http://news.com.com/2061-10795_3-6099985.html that Linus Torvalds has sharply criticised GPLv3 draft terms as "inferior" to GPLv2.
Several elements in the GPLv3 draft unfortunately make it plain that the shift is from "freedom" to "slavery", "hate" and "fear". If the GPLv3 ever comes into effect with such terms, it may even make non-free licenses look very respectable.
I recently modified the licensing terms of the Calpp project that I am maintaining, so that modifications to the Calpp code base would be only under GPLv2 until further notice, to ensure a comfortable level of freedom for its developers and users.
The most important reason why most people appreciate the GPL are the four freedoms:
0: freedom to run the program, for any purpose 1: freedom to study how the program works with source code and adapt it to your use 2: freedom to redistribute copies and 3: freedom to improve and release improvements to the public.
The GPLv2 has implemented the freedoms as license conditions giving rights to licensees to enjoy the freedoms listed above, and has not only stood the test of time, but has created a good ecosystem of free software where developers, users, businesses and governments have benefited.
GPLv3 should ideally be towards giving better rights to developers and licensees to make the freedoms more effectively usable and enjoyable. Many clauses in the draft GPLv3 are unintelligible and ambigious, giving open invitations for interpretations. Having provisions for "additional terms" would make the GPL a non-standard license, and even worse, they would only help to curtail rights and make the freedoms illusory.
If the GPLv3 mission is alter the well known freedoms 0 to 3 substantially, then it is fairly important to discuss that in the first place, before the actual license terms are discussed.
It is premature to discuss the GPLv3 draft, without arriving at a broad consensus on what fixes are required to the basic freedoms enjoyed by developers and licensees. I would request RMS and the FSF to first make a restatement of freedoms 0 to 3 before proceeding further with the GPLv3 process.
It is not clear how the freedoms 0 to 3 will be curtailed by the GPLv3. If you have seen some modifications that do s, it will be useful to raise an alert. Can you explicate the words, or cluases that curtail the four freedoms?
Nagarjuna