[discuss] Reuters: Novell could be banned from selling Linux: group

[Etienne Goyer]

Russell McOrmond wrote:
>   I will ask again: If this clause has no impact, then why object to it
> so strongly?  Why not help those who believe it will have an impact to
> have their interests protected?

Mostly because I see the see the value of having an upgrade to the GPL,
but I think the Corresponding Source clause seriously cripple the
effort.  Also, because as a software user, I would rather have
*software* license limited to governing the use and distribution of
*software*.  Lastly, because said clause is a red herring and will have
zero impact on the actual proliferation of DRM and crippled devices.

In the end, I do not "strongly" object to the GPLv3 itself.  If I where
to chose a license by myself, I would most likely chose another copyleft
license.  But I would certainly not stop myself from contributing to a
project licensed under the GPLv3 just because I think the Corresponding
Source clause is stepping out of the bound of a software license.


-- 
Etienne Goyer                                       0x3106BCC2

"For Bruce Schneier, SHA-1 is merely a compression algorithm."
http://geekz.co.uk/schneierfacts/fact/164

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://www.cluecan.ca/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20070213/51e4cebd/signature.pgp