Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 08:00:24 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: "Gary W. Swearingen" <swear@blarg.net>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IBM's intentions with JFS (was: IBM suing (was: RMS Suingwas [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD)) Message-ID: <3C1F6818.4263AD53@mindspring.com> References: <3C1875D6.5DE4F996@mindspring.com> <20011213051012.Y56723-100000@turtle.looksharp.net> <3C186381.6AB07090@yahoo.com> <3C1875D6.5DE4F996@mindspring.com> <3C186381.6AB07090@yahoo.com> <20011214122837.O3448@monorchid.lemis.com> <3C19807D.C441F084@mindspring.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20011214175450.02da2a90@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20011215232233.00e74cc0@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20011216221810.031b6820@localhost> <20011217163427.A2885@monorchid.lemis.com> <qqheqq2i96.eqq@localhost.localdomain> <3C1DEA69.93892A66@mindspring.com> <k1y9k11nt8.9k1@localhost.localdomain> <4.3.2.7.2.20011217231235.028f0710@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brett Glass wrote: > >This is why, when you get down to it, that the eCOS license is a > >significantly better instrumentality of the GNU Manifesto than > >either the GPL or LGPL. > > I disagree. It's not, because the GNU Manifesto calls for the > destruction of programmers' livelihoods and the eCOS license > actually gives them half a chance to make money (though it > is still non-free). You need to read the license again. It clearly demarcs things which are unclear in the GPL, meaning it has a much better chance to hold up in court, and it deals with the issue of patent assigns. My use of the word "instrumentality" was precise and exactly intended. The GNU Manifesto, much like the Unibomber Manifesto, is an argument against "if things continue as the have been". It's intent is clearly the destruction of the _basis_ for the livelihood of programmers and other people who rely on strong intellectual property law. It doesn't specifically target programmers, except as the first tent in which the camel's nose is to be shoved. The GPL is a poor instrumentality of the Manifesto on several points, the number one being its failure to address patents. In other ways, it fails to promote the goals of the Manifesto as an emergent property, which is what a correct instrumentality is supposed to do. If you read both licenses with the consequences of their universal adoption in mind, you will see that the eCOS one has a significantly truer match in consequences to the stated goals of the Manifesto. The main benefit of the lack of patent assigns is that the corporate adoption of the GPL is much higher than it would have been, had it explicitly recognized such assigns. One has to wonder about "or any future version" in this regard, and also about the fact that companies are free to remove that clause, according tot he license, to freeze code at a particular license version. It also begs the question of whether or not code under such a frozen license (e.g. IBM supplied code) would or would not be "compatible with the GPL" as time goes on. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3C1F6818.4263AD53>