22 Jun
2003
22 Jun
'03
12:33 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Le 22 Juin 2003 07:28, Ivica Bukvic a écrit :
Many of you have pointed out that limiting GPL would
hinder the freedom
it stands for. I agree. I never meant to change THE GPL, but rather to
create an offspring GPL-like license that had my suggested restrictions.
So basically, you want to restrict the use of a software to a specific
type of operating system? Like M$ does?
Dual licensing perhaps is the best option at this
moment. I feel very
strongly about this since it protects all of our efforts and time
investments in Linux.
This is against the idea of free software. I never heard of a free
software license that restricts the use of a software to a specific type
of operating system, computer of peripheral. Adding this restriction to
the GPL and use double licensing would not make it better, it would make
it non-free. Read the GPL. Here's an excerpt: "Activities other than
copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License;
they are outside its scope."
I would also suggest to be careful of the
"elitist" talk how Linux'
freedom offers less commonly used apps and hence the art of a Linux
user is somehow better than of the others.
So GNU/Linux users are elitists because they can use command line tools?
You sound like a typical elitist Mac user... ;-)
- --
Marc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+9bsgQdzoeKQ0PccRApB6AKCDJMIKensIwiQ/E7/bCWx+xw5MCACfciTy
klTGGalaRtOonGtMErRSc7w=
=+Twm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----