Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 11:50:59 +0530 From: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: "G. Adam Stanislav" <redprince@redprince.net>, David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>, Anatoly Vorobey <mellon@pobox.com>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: RE: Why are people against GNU? WAS Re: 5.0 already? Message-ID: <20000516115059.A19647@physics.iisc.ernet.in> In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20000515235734.042edbf0@localhost>; from brett@lariat.org on Tue, May 16, 2000 at 12:01:09AM -0600 References: <002301bfbec0$ec53b3d0$021d85d1@youwant.to> <20000515100959.57288@techunix.technion.ac.il> <3.0.6.32.20000515210946.009676c0@mail85.pair.com> <4.3.1.2.20000515235734.042edbf0@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE > > > > > > Version 2, June 1991 > > > > > >Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc. 675 Mass Ave, > > > Cambridge, MA 02139, USA. Everyone > > >is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license > > > document, but changing it is not allowed. > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > >It is an all or nothing proposition. You either go with GPL all the way, or > >you don't use it at all. > > Interesting! Stallman frequently states that he wants anyone to be able to > tinker with anyone's intellectual property and that the whole concept of > such property is fundamentally wrong. (He even stated, in an interview in > BYTE, s that to prevent someone from modifying it is "sabotage.") Yet > here, he not only claims a copyright but attempts to prohibit modifications > and the creation of derivative works. I suspect you have a habit of quoting him partially or out of context to suit your view of him. You can at least supply references and exact quotes. Yes, he dislikes the term intellectual "property", but he also says he doesn't see a good reason to allow modification of literary works and so on, or research paper, and to permit it would be to tamper with records. But he does believe that educational material, reviews, textbooks and things like that should preferably be "copylefted", to permit correction of errors, and he strongly advocates copylefted manuals. See for instance, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html, As a general rule, I don't believe that it is essential for people to have permission to modify all sorts of articles and books. The issues for writings are not necessarily the same as those for software. For example, I don't think you or I are obliged to give permission to modify articles like this one, which describe our actions and our views. But there is a particular reason why the freedom to modify is crucial for documentation for free software.... Elsewhere (I can't remember where, offhand) he has justified why he prohibits changing the GPL. There are obvious reasons why not: it would possibly weaken its ability to preserve the freedoms it advocates, further down the redistribution line; and it would serve no useful purpose. If you want a GPL-like license with some changes, write your own and call it something else. Lots of people have done that. Rahul. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000516115059.A19647>