Re: GPL and FSF (was Re: JFS)

[Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>]

At 11:25 PM 2/8/2000 , Mark A. Hershberger wrote:

>The boilerplate terms:
>
>     This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>     it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
>     the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
>     (at your option) any later version.
>
>Assume that the FSF has released a new license that says, in effect,
>"The FSF owns this code."  Say, version 666.  In that case, the _user
>of the software_ would be the one with the power to determine who
>controlled the software.

Not so. The change would be, for all intents and purposes, retroactive,
because the same paragraph was included in earlier versions.

 >   BG> All authors who contributes to any "GNU" project must gran
>     BG> all rights to the code to the FSF. So, in fact, this is quite
>     BG> common.  The FSF has ALL rights to GCC, GNOME, etc.
>
>Since rms is the original author of GCC, I don't think he minds that
>they have all the rights.

That's not the point. The point is that one of the purposes of the FSF
is *control* of open source software -- especially packages which
other projects (including the BSDs!) depend on.

 > I'm not going to buy any
>conspiracy theories about what the FSF might do in the future.

It's not a matter of conspiracy theories; it's a matter of power and
control. If the FSF changes the GPL, people could be hurt. To cite an
example: At LinuxWorld Expo last week, Bruce Perens advocated changing
the GPL to force service providers (such as ISPs and ASPs) running
GPLed products to publish any in-house improvements or additions they
made. (He used the phrase "public performance for profit" -- a term
which ASCAP used to use when it raided small businesses and asked
them for fees if they had a TV or played background music.) His
advocacy of such a concept is astonishing, since it is the antithesis
of what open source has come to represent. But Perens was adamant.
He said, "I *will* convince [Stallman]" to make the change. It's all
on the tape of the conference session.

--Brett