Thanks to Tony Healy, Senior Fellow at IPI, for sending this story by Sean Kerner at Internet News.

Google's open source guru, Chris DiBona, talks about the current version of GPL3:

DiBona noted that the draft appears to allow for a one-way relicensing of GPL v3 code into Affero-covered code. At that point, the code could be governed by Affero GPL, rather than the latest version of the GPL v3. But the latest GPL draft said if conveyance occurs, then, according to the right of the GPL, the developer would need to provide full source code for the GPL'ed application.

The new clauses won't change Google's practices. "We have the ability to tag incoming open source code as being allowed or not allowed in Web performance situations," DiBona said. "This means we don't need to worry too much about these kinds of restrictions [because] we can track them."

Besides the FSF raising transaction costs for firms like Google that have to scrub code for possible GPL3 infections, it says a lot that what the FSF calls "freedoms" Google calls "restrictions."

What does it reveal about the "four freedoms" when they impose restrictions that could hamper innovation, and when their contribution to innovation is at most limited or narrow in scope? The religious FOSS crowd could not answer a question like that, which would require balancing-weighing values, and sense of proportion.

The practical FOSS crowd, of which I consider Google, Novell and Yahoo!, might smile at Stallman, but will always make sure he does not derail their trips to the bank.