Re: [MLUG] No Google Linux

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Phillip Kelchen wrote:

> If I am not mistaken, can't people still use GPL version 2 as a license?

Of course.  Anyone can use any version of any license he pleases.


> However, this could cause a lot of bad blood between GNU and others 
> (such as the Linux kernel team), which is not good. It will also provide 
> bad publicity about OSS and Linux and be a setback for those who want to 
> see Linux succeed commercially.

We'll see what happens.  Here's the draft of GPLv3:

http://gplv3.fsf.org/draft

Section 3 is on DRM.

You can read the rationale behind the changes here:

http://gplv3.fsf.org/rationale

This is the rationale on DRM:

http://gplv3.fsf.org/rationale#SECTION00340000000000000000

This is in the Preamble:

   Some countries have adopted laws prohibiting software that enables
   users to escape from Digital Restrictions Management. DRM is
   fundamentally incompatible with the purpose of the GPL, which is to
   protect users' freedom; therefore, the GPL ensures that the software it
   covers will neither be subject to, nor subject other works to, digital
   restrictions from which escape is forbidden.

I take this to mean that if you want to write DRM software, you can't use 
GPLv3 as its license.  I also take this to mean that if the Linux kernel 
were under GPLv3, you could still run DRM software on Linux.

Maybe one of you will have a better understanding of section 3 than I 
have.  Here's something from the rationale about the second paragraph of 
section 3:

   If a covered work is distributed as part of a system for generating or
   accessing certain data, the effect of this paragraph is to prevent
   someone from claiming that some other GPL'd program that accesses the
   same data is an illegal circumvention.

This must be the central issue because paragraph 1 is only about illegal 
uses.  I don't see how this is going to be important because won't 
developers of DRM software just avoid the GPL, as they would have anyway?

So far I see nothing not to like in GPLv3 and I don't understand what the 
big deal is.  In the past, people have spread a lot of disinformation 
about Stallman and the GPL, so maybe that's what we're seeing now.

Mike

_______________________________________________
members mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/members