|
Peter Glaskowsky makes several observations on GPLv3 over at Cnet.
On the issue that while the Free Software Foundation touts GPLv3 as more conducive to freedom, the license actually imposes more restrictions than it protects against, and adds complexity to co-existence of different licenses in technology systems. According to the FSF's press release, the new license provides stronger protection for the freedom of users and improves compatibility with other free-software licenses.
In practice, GPLv3 will also restrict the freedom of some developers and reduce compatibility with commercial licenses. The Free Software Foundation’s “four freedoms,” for which Stallman and company seem willing to subvert all other values, would seem alien to the average consumer, and mad to most policy commentators. However, the Foundation’s willingness to run head-first into trees while looking for the forest may also upset developers that could strain themselves over licensing compliance.
The notion of complex compliance with FOSS licensing runs contrary to FOSS supporters' claims that FOSS provides more freedom from government regulatory costs. How FOSS actually works is made more complicated by Stallman …[with GPLv3] Linux software development will gain a legal complexity it has not previously had.
…
Now it's time to add another phrase to the list: "free as in free software," meaning the freedom to make adversaries of potential partners--the kind of freedom one has when one's work must be carefully excluded from other people's projects. It seems to me that one of the world's biggest opponents of copyrights and patents has simply found another way to achieve the same results. I would also suggest “free has no meaning unless blessed by the Free Software Foundation,” given the Foundation’s implicit position that GPLv3 will rely on “community enforcement” at what Stallman deems the “spirit of the GPL.”
FOSS proponents have been the reason for slow maturation and adoption of FOSS, but rather than address the weaknesses of FOSS, the Free Software Foundation still follows the tunnel-path of unqualified support for a few narrow ideals. I think we're about to find out whether Stallman and the FSF have gone too far in their campaign against intellectual property. Freedom isn't anarchy. True freedom includes the ability to enter into agreements that limit our future options when we believe that's in our interest.
The debate over free software is full of phrases like "free as in beer" and "free as in speech". To these, Stallman added the self-contradictory "free as in freedom"-- his idea of "free" being inconsistent with freedom in the ordinary sense, which entails responsibilities such as the obligation to honor one's commitments. The Free Software Foundation, in touting GPLv3, appears to have lost all sense of proportion. At least the Foundation has absolved us intellectual property supporters from any blame for the potential demise of FOSS. If the FOSS movement nose-dives into the water, the technological community should look first at the Foundation, which may achieve something no proprietary company could- toppling FOSS.
posted by Noel Le @ 7:39 AM | Free Culture Movement
Link to this Entry |
Printer-Friendly |
Email a Comment | Post a Comment(0)
|
