Comments on: James V. Delong on GPL3 http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:51:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Stephen Pollei http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/comment-page-1/#comment-51536 Stephen Pollei Sat, 31 Mar 2007 21:03:53 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/#comment-51536 <p>MikeT, I think you mean that you have <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy" rel="nofollow">Ochlocracy</a> rather than <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist" rel="nofollow">Anarchist</a> views. An anarchist still has rules.</p> MikeT, I think you mean that you have Ochlocracy rather than Anarchist views. An anarchist still has rules.

]]> By: Stephen Pollei http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/comment-page-1/#comment-37773 Stephen Pollei Sat, 31 Mar 2007 20:03:53 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/#comment-37773 <p>MikeT, I think you mean that you have <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy" rel="nofollow">Ochlocracy</a> rather than <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist" rel="nofollow">Anarchist</a> views. An anarchist still has rules.</p> MikeT, I think you mean that you have Ochlocracy rather than Anarchist views. An anarchist still has rules.

]]> By: MikeT http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/comment-page-1/#comment-51535 MikeT Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:42:23 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/#comment-51535 <p>Sorry, I meant to imply that they are licensed under licenses similar to the MIT or BSD licenses, no the GPL. By better I mean just that, better. My views on OSS are more anarchistic than Stallman's. The plugins and scripts I have written for WordPress, for example, are released with IP anarchy in mind. I honestly don't care if someone were to take them, modify them and sell them. I find it highly pretentious to think that using a few lines of code from an other OSS project should infect your entire code base. But, as I have said, I define liberty in terms of a vacuum of power and authority, not in policy, the way that many libertarians do. Liberty to me is best defined as a lack of being told what to do.</p> Sorry, I meant to imply that they are licensed under licenses similar to the MIT or BSD licenses, no the GPL. By better I mean just that, better. My views on OSS are more anarchistic than Stallman’s. The plugins and scripts I have written for WordPress, for example, are released with IP anarchy in mind. I honestly don’t care if someone were to take them, modify them and sell them. I find it highly pretentious to think that using a few lines of code from an other OSS project should infect your entire code base. But, as I have said, I define liberty in terms of a vacuum of power and authority, not in policy, the way that many libertarians do. Liberty to me is best defined as a lack of being told what to do.

]]> By: MikeT http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/comment-page-1/#comment-37772 MikeT Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:42:23 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/#comment-37772 <p>Sorry, I meant to imply that they are licensed under licenses similar to the MIT or BSD licenses, no the GPL. By better I mean just that, better. My views on OSS are more anarchistic than Stallman's. The plugins and scripts I have written for WordPress, for example, are released with IP anarchy in mind. I honestly don't care if someone were to take them, modify them and sell them. I find it highly pretentious to think that using a few lines of code from an other OSS project should infect your entire code base. But, as I have said, I define liberty in terms of a vacuum of power and authority, not in policy, the way that many libertarians do. Liberty to me is best defined as a lack of being told what to do.</p> Sorry, I meant to imply that they are licensed under licenses similar to the MIT or BSD licenses, no the GPL. By better I mean just that, better. My views on OSS are more anarchistic than Stallman’s. The plugins and scripts I have written for WordPress, for example, are released with IP anarchy in mind. I honestly don’t care if someone were to take them, modify them and sell them. I find it highly pretentious to think that using a few lines of code from an other OSS project should infect your entire code base. But, as I have said, I define liberty in terms of a vacuum of power and authority, not in policy, the way that many libertarians do. Liberty to me is best defined as a lack of being told what to do.

]]> By: Noel Le http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/comment-page-1/#comment-51534 Noel Le Sat, 31 Mar 2007 00:07:31 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/#comment-51534 <p>If GPL3 goes nowhere, what will happy to the great proletarian revolution?</p> If GPL3 goes nowhere, what will happy to the great proletarian revolution?

]]> By: Noel Le http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/comment-page-1/#comment-37771 Noel Le Fri, 30 Mar 2007 23:07:31 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/#comment-37771 <p>If GPL3 goes nowhere, what will happy to the great proletarian revolution?</p> If GPL3 goes nowhere, what will happy to the great proletarian revolution?

]]> By: Richard Bennett http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/comment-page-1/#comment-51533 Richard Bennett Fri, 30 Mar 2007 20:00:36 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/#comment-51533 <p>Linus Torvalds doesn't support GPL3.<br><br>I see the GPLers are trying to twist Torvalds' statements on GPL out of context. He said he's "pleased" that the latest draft of GPL3 is "better than the first draft", but he's made it clear that it's still not good enough for him to submit to.<br><br>The money guys who actually fund Linux development - IBM and HP - aren't on board either, so GPL3 is going nowhere.</p> Linus Torvalds doesn’t support GPL3.

I see the GPLers are trying to twist Torvalds’ statements on GPL out of context. He said he’s “pleased” that the latest draft of GPL3 is “better than the first draft”, but he’s made it clear that it’s still not good enough for him to submit to.

The money guys who actually fund Linux development – IBM and HP – aren’t on board either, so GPL3 is going nowhere.

]]> By: Richard Bennett http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/comment-page-1/#comment-37770 Richard Bennett Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:00:36 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/#comment-37770 <p>Linus Torvalds doesn't support GPL3.</p> <p>I see the GPLers are trying to twist Torvalds' statements on GPL out of context. He said he's "pleased" that the latest draft of GPL3 is "better than the first draft", but he's made it clear that it's still not good enough for him to submit to.</p> <p>The money guys who actually fund Linux development - IBM and HP - aren't on board either, so GPL3 is going nowhere.</p> Linus Torvalds doesn’t support GPL3.

I see the GPLers are trying to twist Torvalds’ statements on GPL out of context. He said he’s “pleased” that the latest draft of GPL3 is “better than the first draft”, but he’s made it clear that it’s still not good enough for him to submit to.

The money guys who actually fund Linux development – IBM and HP – aren’t on board either, so GPL3 is going nowhere.

]]> By: eee_eff http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/comment-page-1/#comment-51532 eee_eff Fri, 30 Mar 2007 18:29:35 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/#comment-51532 <p>Well, the reason I commented on this is that the original post said:<br><br>"But the GPLv3 was apparently drafted on the assumption that it is something quite different —that it is a regulation controlling a range of general behavior by software users, and that it is being promulgated by a governmental body with law-creating power."<br><br>And my post reminded all that the GPL 3.0 is in fact a voluntary contract, because James seems to want very much to paint the FSF in an "anti-freedom" light, which is basically a smear.<br><br>Freedom is what the GPL is all about.<br><br>"You seem a little testy, enigma. Does it bother you that Linus Torvalds says he's totally not into GPL 3?"<br><br>Actually, as I had predicted here and elsewhere, the Novell deal and the inclusive revision process will bring more and more developers into GPL 3.0 camp. Some of the messiness that we see is just a community building consensus.<br><br>As for being testy, it seems to me that those who would detract from the GPL are in fact quite testy. They really abandon their supposedly freedom-based orientation as soon as they are confronted with something unexpected.<br><br>But the possibillity of unexpected emergent phenomena is exactly what makes freedom a good, and efforts to bound freedom, in the absence of a compelling rationale, wrong.</p> Well, the reason I commented on this is that the original post said:

“But the GPLv3 was apparently drafted on the assumption that it is something quite different —that it is a regulation controlling a range of general behavior by software users, and that it is being promulgated by a governmental body with law-creating power.”

And my post reminded all that the GPL 3.0 is in fact a voluntary contract, because James seems to want very much to paint the FSF in an “anti-freedom” light, which is basically a smear.

Freedom is what the GPL is all about.

“You seem a little testy, enigma. Does it bother you that Linus Torvalds says he’s totally not into GPL 3?”

Actually, as I had predicted here and elsewhere, the Novell deal and the inclusive revision process will bring more and more developers into GPL 3.0 camp. Some of the messiness that we see is just a community building consensus.

As for being testy, it seems to me that those who would detract from the GPL are in fact quite testy. They really abandon their supposedly freedom-based orientation as soon as they are confronted with something unexpected.

But the possibillity of unexpected emergent phenomena is exactly what makes freedom a good, and efforts to bound freedom, in the absence of a compelling rationale, wrong.

]]> By: enigma_foundry http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/comment-page-1/#comment-37769 enigma_foundry Fri, 30 Mar 2007 17:29:35 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/#comment-37769 <p>Well, the reason I commented on this is that the original post said:</p> <p>"But the GPLv3 was apparently drafted on the assumption that it is something quite different —that it is a regulation controlling a range of general behavior by software users, and that it is being promulgated by a governmental body with law-creating power."</p> <p>And my post reminded all that the GPL 3.0 is in fact a voluntary contract, because James seems to want very much to paint the FSF in an "anti-freedom" light, which is basically a smear.</p> <p>Freedom is what the GPL is all about.</p> <p>"You seem a little testy, enigma. Does it bother you that Linus Torvalds says he's totally not into GPL 3?"</p> <p>Actually, as I had predicted here and elsewhere, the Novell deal and the inclusive revision process will bring more and more developers into GPL 3.0 camp. Some of the messiness that we see is just a community building consensus.</p> <p>As for being testy, it seems to me that those who would detract from the GPL are in fact quite testy. They really abandon their supposedly freedom-based orientation as soon as they are confronted with something unexpected.</p> <p>But the possibillity of unexpected emergent phenomena is exactly what makes freedom a good, and efforts to bound freedom, in the absence of a compelling rationale, wrong.</p> Well, the reason I commented on this is that the original post said:

“But the GPLv3 was apparently drafted on the assumption that it is something quite different —that it is a regulation controlling a range of general behavior by software users, and that it is being promulgated by a governmental body with law-creating power.”

And my post reminded all that the GPL 3.0 is in fact a voluntary contract, because James seems to want very much to paint the FSF in an “anti-freedom” light, which is basically a smear.

Freedom is what the GPL is all about.

“You seem a little testy, enigma. Does it bother you that Linus Torvalds says he’s totally not into GPL 3?”

Actually, as I had predicted here and elsewhere, the Novell deal and the inclusive revision process will bring more and more developers into GPL 3.0 camp. Some of the messiness that we see is just a community building consensus.

As for being testy, it seems to me that those who would detract from the GPL are in fact quite testy. They really abandon their supposedly freedom-based orientation as soon as they are confronted with something unexpected.

But the possibillity of unexpected emergent phenomena is exactly what makes freedom a good, and efforts to bound freedom, in the absence of a compelling rationale, wrong.

]]> By: Jeff Macdonald http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/comment-page-1/#comment-51531 Jeff Macdonald Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:54:39 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/#comment-51531 <p>MikeT, none of those products use BSD or MIT license. They all have their own license. OpenOffice actually uses the LGPL. I know of 2 products that use the GPL but offer dual licenses, MySQL and SleepyCat DB (Berkely DB). They offer dual licenses for a price. GPL is free, another license costs $$.<br></br><br><br><br>I'm curious, what is your defination of 'something better'? Is it something along the lines of 'I can claim the code as my own'?<br><br></br></p> MikeT, none of those products use BSD or MIT license. They all have their own license. OpenOffice actually uses the LGPL. I know of 2 products that use the GPL but offer dual licenses, MySQL and SleepyCat DB (Berkely DB). They offer dual licenses for a price. GPL is free, another license costs $$.



I’m curious, what is your defination of ‘something better’? Is it something along the lines of ‘I can claim the code as my own’?

]]> By: Jeff Macdonald http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/comment-page-1/#comment-51530 Jeff Macdonald Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:41:59 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/#comment-51530 <p>Richard, you haven't seen the latest statement from Linus regarding the lastest draft:<br></br><br><br><br>"Linus Torvalds is 'pretty pleased' with the current GPL v3 draft"</br><br><br><br><a href="http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/29/1331237">http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/...</a><br></br><br></br><br><br>And Gary, those implied words are yours, and only yours unless enigma_foundy says otherwise.<br><br></br></p> Richard, you haven’t seen the latest statement from Linus regarding the lastest draft:



“Linus Torvalds is ‘pretty pleased’ with the current GPL v3 draft”


http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/…



And Gary, those implied words are yours, and only yours unless enigma_foundy says otherwise.

]]> By: MikeT http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/comment-page-1/#comment-51529 MikeT Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:37:02 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/#comment-51529 <p>enigma_factory,</p> <p><br></p> <p>That's why some of us generally avoid GPL software when there is something better. Have you not noticed that most good OSS is in fact dual-licensed or licensed under a BSD or MIT license? Apache's projects, OpenOffice, Mozilla's projects, need I go on?</p> enigma_factory,


That’s why some of us generally avoid GPL software when there is something better. Have you not noticed that most good OSS is in fact dual-licensed or licensed under a BSD or MIT license? Apache’s projects, OpenOffice, Mozilla’s projects, need I go on?

]]> By: Doug Lay http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/comment-page-1/#comment-51528 Doug Lay Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:33:58 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/#comment-51528 <p>According to CNet, Torvalds is "pleased" with the latest revisions to GPL 3.0, although still noncommittal about migrating the Linux kernel to the new license. Apparently the anti-DRM language has been greatly toned down in the latest revision, which seems prudent. Stallman and the FSF will compromise when they feel it's in their long-term interest (LGPL, anyone)?<br><br>I don't think Linus has spoken out against the anti-software-patent language in GPL 3, but I could be wrong. It may be that the kernel developers are willing to accept language that targets "side" IP covenants like the MS-Novell deal.</p> According to CNet, Torvalds is “pleased” with the latest revisions to GPL 3.0, although still noncommittal about migrating the Linux kernel to the new license. Apparently the anti-DRM language has been greatly toned down in the latest revision, which seems prudent. Stallman and the FSF will compromise when they feel it’s in their long-term interest (LGPL, anyone)?

I don’t think Linus has spoken out against the anti-software-patent language in GPL 3, but I could be wrong. It may be that the kernel developers are willing to accept language that targets “side” IP covenants like the MS-Novell deal.

]]> By: Jeff Macdonald http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/comment-page-1/#comment-37768 Jeff Macdonald Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:54:39 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/#comment-37768 <p>MikeT, none of those products use BSD or MIT license. They all have their own license. OpenOffice actually uses the LGPL. I know of 2 products that use the GPL but offer dual licenses, MySQL and SleepyCat DB (Berkely DB). They offer dual licenses for a price. GPL is free, another license costs $$.<br /><br /></p> <p>I'm curious, what is your defination of 'something better'? Is it something along the lines of 'I can claim the code as my own'?</p> MikeT, none of those products use BSD or MIT license. They all have their own license. OpenOffice actually uses the LGPL. I know of 2 products that use the GPL but offer dual licenses, MySQL and SleepyCat DB (Berkely DB). They offer dual licenses for a price. GPL is free, another license costs $$.

I’m curious, what is your defination of ‘something better’? Is it something along the lines of ‘I can claim the code as my own’?

]]> By: Jeff Macdonald http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/comment-page-1/#comment-37767 Jeff Macdonald Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:41:59 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/#comment-37767 <p>Richard, you haven't seen the latest statement from Linus regarding the lastest draft:<br /><br /></p> <p>"Linus Torvalds is 'pretty pleased' with the current GPL v3 draft"<br /></p> <p>http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/29/1331237 <br /><br /> And Gary, those implied words are yours, and only yours unless enigma_foundy says otherwise.</p> Richard, you haven’t seen the latest statement from Linus regarding the lastest draft:

“Linus Torvalds is ‘pretty pleased’ with the current GPL v3 draft”

http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/29/1331237

And Gary, those implied words are yours, and only yours unless enigma_foundy says otherwise.

]]> By: MikeT http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/comment-page-1/#comment-37766 MikeT Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:37:02 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/#comment-37766 <p>enigma_factory,</p> <p>That's why some of us generally avoid GPL software when there is something better. Have you not noticed that most good OSS is in fact dual-licensed or licensed under a BSD or MIT license? Apache's projects, OpenOffice, Mozilla's projects, need I go on?</p> enigma_factory,

That’s why some of us generally avoid GPL software when there is something better. Have you not noticed that most good OSS is in fact dual-licensed or licensed under a BSD or MIT license? Apache’s projects, OpenOffice, Mozilla’s projects, need I go on?

]]> By: Doug Lay http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/comment-page-1/#comment-37765 Doug Lay Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:33:58 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/#comment-37765 <p>According to CNet, Torvalds is "pleased" with the latest revisions to GPL 3.0, although still noncommittal about migrating the Linux kernel to the new license. Apparently the anti-DRM language has been greatly toned down in the latest revision, which seems prudent. Stallman and the FSF will compromise when they feel it's in their long-term interest (LGPL, anyone)?</p> <p>I don't think Linus has spoken out against the anti-software-patent language in GPL 3, but I could be wrong. It may be that the kernel developers are willing to accept language that targets "side" IP covenants like the MS-Novell deal.</p> According to CNet, Torvalds is “pleased” with the latest revisions to GPL 3.0, although still noncommittal about migrating the Linux kernel to the new license. Apparently the anti-DRM language has been greatly toned down in the latest revision, which seems prudent. Stallman and the FSF will compromise when they feel it’s in their long-term interest (LGPL, anyone)?

I don’t think Linus has spoken out against the anti-software-patent language in GPL 3, but I could be wrong. It may be that the kernel developers are willing to accept language that targets “side” IP covenants like the MS-Novell deal.

]]> By: Gary McGath http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/comment-page-1/#comment-51527 Gary McGath Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:09:43 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/#comment-51527 <p>The implied words in enigma_foundry's statement are, "If you don't like it, don't use it, and don't use any GPL code -- AND KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT." But the fact that something is a voluntary contract, and possibly a bad one, is not a reason to exclude it from public discussion and criticism.</p> The implied words in enigma_foundry’s statement are, “If you don’t like it, don’t use it, and don’t use any GPL code — AND KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT.” But the fact that something is a voluntary contract, and possibly a bad one, is not a reason to exclude it from public discussion and criticism.

]]> By: Richard Bennett http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/comment-page-1/#comment-51526 Richard Bennett Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:51:03 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/#comment-51526 <p>You seem a little testy, enigma. Does it bother you that Linus Torvalds says he's totally not into GPL 3?</p> You seem a little testy, enigma. Does it bother you that Linus Torvalds says he’s totally not into GPL 3?

]]> By: Gary McGath http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/comment-page-1/#comment-37764 Gary McGath Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:09:43 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/#comment-37764 <p>The implied words in enigma_foundry's statement are, "If you don't like it, don't use it, and don't use any GPL code -- AND KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT." But the fact that something is a voluntary contract, and possibly a bad one, is not a reason to exclude it from public discussion and criticism.</p> The implied words in enigma_foundry’s statement are, “If you don’t like it, don’t use it, and don’t use any GPL code — AND KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT.” But the fact that something is a voluntary contract, and possibly a bad one, is not a reason to exclude it from public discussion and criticism.

]]> By: Richard Bennett http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/comment-page-1/#comment-37763 Richard Bennett Fri, 30 Mar 2007 09:51:03 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/#comment-37763 <p>You seem a little testy, enigma. Does it bother you that Linus Torvalds says he's totally not into GPL 3?</p> You seem a little testy, enigma. Does it bother you that Linus Torvalds says he’s totally not into GPL 3?

]]> By: eee_eff http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/comment-page-1/#comment-51525 eee_eff Fri, 30 Mar 2007 05:52:09 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/#comment-51525 <p>Hmmm...The right wing is all for voluntary contracts, until someone comes up with a voluntary contract that they don't like.<br><br>Well, Solveig and James, I suggest you not release any of the software you care to write under the GPL 3.0.<br><br>So the very big difference between GPL and a government is the GPL is a VOLUNTARY contract.<br><br>If you don't like it, don't use it, and don't use any GPL code.<br><br>It really is THAT SIMPLE.</p> Hmmm…The right wing is all for voluntary contracts, until someone comes up with a voluntary contract that they don’t like.

Well, Solveig and James, I suggest you not release any of the software you care to write under the GPL 3.0.

So the very big difference between GPL and a government is the GPL is a VOLUNTARY contract.

If you don’t like it, don’t use it, and don’t use any GPL code.

It really is THAT SIMPLE.

]]> By: enigma_foundry http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/comment-page-1/#comment-37762 enigma_foundry Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:52:09 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/#comment-37762 <p>Hmmm...The right wing is all for voluntary contracts, until someone comes up with a voluntary contract that they don't like.</p> <p>Well, Solveig and James, I suggest you not release any of the software you care to write under the GPL 3.0.</p> <p>So the very big difference between GPL and a government is the GPL is a VOLUNTARY contract.</p> <p>If you don't like it, don't use it, and don't use any GPL code.</p> <p>It really is THAT SIMPLE.</p> Hmmm…The right wing is all for voluntary contracts, until someone comes up with a voluntary contract that they don’t like.

Well, Solveig and James, I suggest you not release any of the software you care to write under the GPL 3.0.

So the very big difference between GPL and a government is the GPL is a VOLUNTARY contract.

If you don’t like it, don’t use it, and don’t use any GPL code.

It really is THAT SIMPLE.

]]> By: Richard Bennett http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/comment-page-1/#comment-51524 Richard Bennett Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:32:06 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/#comment-51524 <p><i>If GPLv3 were a human being, one would say that it has delusions of grandeur. It thinks it is a law rather than a license.</i><br><br>Yup.</p> If GPLv3 were a human being, one would say that it has delusions of grandeur. It thinks it is a law rather than a license.

Yup.

]]> By: Richard Bennett http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/comment-page-1/#comment-37761 Richard Bennett Fri, 30 Mar 2007 03:32:06 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/03/29/james-v-delong-on-gpl3/#comment-37761 <p><i>If GPLv3 were a human being, one would say that it has delusions of grandeur. It thinks it is a law rather than a license.</i></p> <p>Yup.</p> If GPLv3 were a human being, one would say that it has delusions of grandeur. It thinks it is a law rather than a license.

Yup.

]]>