Message 02338 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT02232 Message: 26/51 L7 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: usage of software [was: Re: Fwd: Re: [ox-en] Walther]



On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:

On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 12:49:12PM -0500, Graham Seaman wrote:
b. People clustered round a small group of licenses of which IMO the
most significant is the license formerly known as the ggpl ('greater
good public license'), now the cgpl. See http://www.ggpl.org This
license includes the UN declaration on human rights as part of its
conditions.

Googling and searching on Freshmeat and Sourceforge, I could not find
a single piece of software under the CGPL. I'm sure the exist but I
don't get the sense it's anything more than interesting illectual idea
for people who want to harness the power of FOSS but who, for whatever
reasons, don't buy into the radical non-discrimination that lies at
the heart of FOSS.

If you can find George Dafermos (who spoke at the last oekonux conference,
though not on this topic) he might be able to put up a better defense 
of the ggpl than I could... George, are you lurking?

'radical non-discrimination that lies at the heart of FOSS': does that
extend beyond usage of software? If so, necessarily, or not?


Why is this (AFAIK) a small group of people? Why (AFAIK) haven't
most people heard of this license?

The small groups who have clustered around it were mostly not software
developers and almost wholly not FOSS developers. It's criticized
heavily by both of these communities for a number of reasons but
primarily for being (1) totally unenforceable; (2) starting down the
slippery slow of discriminating based on use; (3) starting down this
path with an incredibly vague set of definitions; and (4) not being
Free Software. FWIW, the last one is probably not worth much to
proponents of the GGPL/CGPL who see themselves solving a problem that
FOSS advocates see as a major strength.

Well, they were  meant to be rhetorical questions for Martin to answer -
but I guess you've done his homework for him now ;-)

You're right that this license didn't start from primarily software
people, but from hardware people. Though the hardware (gnubook) seems
to be on hold at the moment :-( ...


I'm not sure you can place political restrictions on FOSS in ways that
are both satisfying and effective to the person advocating them and
that are legally enforceable *and* acceptable to your potential
development communities.

I agree, but I don't think Martin does.

Graham


Regards,
Mako



_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: projekt oekonux.de



Thread: oxenT02232 Message: 26/51 L7 [In index]
Message 02338 [Homepage] [Navigation]