Julian Bradfield <jcb+xeb(a)jcbradfield.org> writes:
On 2011-02-15, David Kastrup <dak(a)gnu.org> wrote:
> Vocabulary like "contaminated" belongs in the rhetoric of free
> software's opponents. You might want to consider not feeding _their_
> propaganda mills, even when your goals don't match that of the Free
> Software Foundation.
Why? The GPL is carefully, deliberately and explicitly designed to
behave like a contaminant (or virus, if you prefer).
Nonsense. If there is anything acting like a contaminant or virus, it
is copyright. You can't integrate or redistribute _any_ software from
third parties short of an explicit license.
The GPL is a license that at least allows you redistribution. Calling
it names for that is disingenuous, to say the least. It's like calling
the common cold nasty names because unlike Ebola, it does not have the
decency to leave its victims dead.
Do you call the Microsoft EULA a contaminant or virus? It allows
Microsoft to remotely destroy your computer and data without your
agreement or compensation if they think it useful in order to try
implementing new Digital Rights Management schemes on your hardware.
The "Windows Genuine Advantage" program shut down ten thousands of
perfectly legal installations remotely when going wrong. Microsoft
tried to fix this in a few weeks, simply because it was bad press. But
they were _covered_ by the license. If they had decided to simply let
all those computers remain broken without even trying to fix the
problem, the license would have permitted them to do so.
Of course, they would not have liked to have this made into a class
action suite since it is not in their interest to have their license
poison examined too closely in the light of the actual consequences.
People are fine with licenses that essentially allow rootkitting and
bricking your computer. And use the term "viral" for the GPL.
That's simply successful brainwashing by the content industry
propaganda.
There's no advantage in pretending it isn't, whether or not
one agrees
with the policy.
If commerce complains about the viral nature of the GPL, the right
answer is to say "yes, and this is why: ....".
The right answer is "how are any of the GPL's terms more restricting
than those of software licenses you don't call names?". And of course
tell commerce "if you don't like the consequences of copyright, don't
complain about the GPL. Lobby your favorite politician to make
copyright laws and their extensions less absurd, and the GPL will have
less impact on your business along with the rest of those licenses."
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta