Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 12:41:35 -0700 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: Nils Holland <nils@tisys.org> Cc: Jeremy Karlson <karlj000@unbc.ca>, Craig Harding <crh@outpost.co.nz>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GPL nonsense: time to stop Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20011218122933.02806b90@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20011218193510.A23697@tisys.org> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20011218095233.028ea920@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20011217222907.028403b0@localhost> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0112180119550.29122-100000@ugrad.unbc.ca> <4.3.2.7.2.20011218095233.028ea920@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 11:35 AM 12/18/2001, Nils Holland wrote: >May I ask, just out of interest, how it comes that you have *such a strong* >dislike against the FSF, GPL and RMS I don't particularly like them, but my messages here don't stem from a personal dislike. My postings are motivated by a thorough understanding of their history, ideology, and goals and a desire for these things NOT to affect the BSDs. >that you portray them as the ultimate devils? I merely report their stated intentions. If you think that, because they have these intentions, they are the "ultimate devils," you will probably want to oppose their efforts. >As I have already said, I'm not the biggest fan of the GPL either, >and the licensing discussion certainly is of at least some importance, but >I would like to understand your reasons for actually coming up with such >*diabolic* theories. Again, YOU used the word "diabolic," not me. I'm merely pointing out what Stallman, Perens, and the FSF have EXPLICITLY SAID they want to do, and the likely ways in which they will try to accomplish it. For more information on the motivations behind the GPL, read "The GNU Manifesto" (the earlier versions, not the "sanitized" one which is on the FSF's Web site) and Steven Levy's book "Hackers." Or catch RMS in a moment when he believes that he is not speaking "on the record." >Furthermore, I don't currently see a legally or real-world enforcible way >to restirct the output of GPLed software. Perens talked about this at the 1999 LinuxWorld. (I have a tape of the talk, but not a transcript, though I've been meaning to transcribe it.) The intent is to use the notion of a "performance" of a work, which is well entrenched in copyright law. The output of a compiler would be a "performance" whose copying and distribution could be restricted. So would the output of a Web server that used GPLed software. In the case of the compiler, there's also another issue. Compilers build the compiled program from snippets of code contained within themselves. Thus, the output of a GPLed compiler could, according to copyright law, be considered considered to be GPLed as well. Originally, Bison was licensed in this way, but the FSF backed off. It will have no reason to back off, however, once GCC has a monopoly. --Brett 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?4.3.2.7.2.20011218122933.02806b90>