linux-kernel - Re: GPL version 4

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:41:50 -0400
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	Morton Harrow <mharrow@...uxmail.org>
Cc:	Miod Vallat <miod@...ine.fr>, licensing@....org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rms@....org,
	claire.newman@...onical.com, announce@...europe.org,
	misc@...nbsd.org, ubuntu-users@...ts.ubuntu.com,
	fedora-list@...hat.com, netbsd-users@...bsd.org,
	freebsd-questions@...ebsd.org
Subject: Re: GPL version 4

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 05:31:15 +0800, Morton Harrow said:

> I see with pain in my heart that the GPLv3 doesn't actually give the
> users of GPLv3 software the liberty and freedom the FSF has been
> fighting for. Instead they are forced to play by the strict set of
> terms the GPLv3 provides.

You missed an important philosophical point.  In Richard Stallman's world view,
it isn't the user's freedoms that matter, it's the *software*s freedom.

> For example, as a liberated computer user, I might like to incorporate
> a high quality piece of GPLv3 software in a commercial product,
> which for bussiness strategic reasons happens to be closed source software.
> But the GPLv3 denies my claim for this freedom to do this.

Right, because doing so would impact the *software*s freedom.

> I fail to see how that strengthens me in a Free and Liberal Software World.

Sometimes, it's not about you.

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped