[discuss] Reuters: Novell could be banned from selling Linux:
etienne.goyer at outlands.ca
Tue Feb 13 10:42:51 EST 2007
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."
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://www.cluecan.ca/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20070213/51e4cebd/signature.pgp
More information about the discuss