Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
inode0 at gmail.com
Sat Jul 19 23:12:27 UTC 2008
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Antonio Olivares
<olivares14031 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Not leave any doubts. No and/ifs/buts or ors. That is what I am trying to say.
> They have said that they were going to block non GPL modules and they have
> not, they have tried. IT is still much of a gray area. That is what I mean. Some
> vendors have found ways of bypassing the GPL requirement, there's some that
> can be found on the net.
There are always doubts about the terms and validity of licenses until
courts speak on the matter. That may be fortunate or unfortunate
depending on your point of view.
I don't like the terms of just about every license I for one reason or
another accept. But the fact remains that the copyright holder gets to
make the choice of terms, I get to accept or decline them.
Would the world be a better place with no GPL and all software created
by those who now create code under the GPL putting it into the public
domain instead? Would users of software have the freedom to learn,
tinker, fix, and improve the amount of software they now can in that
The GPL is a choice made by creators. They can and do make lots of
other choices. Some make choices that foster a free software
community, some don't. I think accepting that good and sincere people
will make the choice of copyleft licenses because they believe that
ultimately serves the free software community better than other
alternatives will help foster the dialog. If the goal is to get them
to allow their code to be assimilated into proprietary code then there
probably isn't much point to the dialog.
More information about the users