On Sun, 2006-11-12 at 18:52 +0100, M. Fioretti wrote: > On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 10:34:58 AM -0700, Craig White > (craigwhite@xxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > > If it is demonstrated that this deal does indeed violate GPL license > > and thus disqualifies Novell from legally distributing GPL licensed > > software, it won't go unnoticed. > > > > Interestingly enough, this event probably gives rise to the best > > argument in favor of GPL v3 than all other events. > > > > Hmm... why, exactly? (I'm serious, I haven't had time to study GPL3 in > detail yet) ---- see http://gplv3.fsf.org (one of the good things about GPL/FSF licensing is readability, unlike the EULA from other well known companies) from which I lift this quotation... "The core legal mechanism of the GNU GPL is that of copyleft, which requires modified versions of GPL'd software to be GPL'd themselves. Copyleft is essential for preventing the enclosure of the free software commons, today as it was in 1991. But today's environment is more complex and diverse; thus, a fully effective copyleft calls for additional legal measures. Devising these measures is complicated by another aspect of our success: the worldwide adoption of free software principles." In reality, it is agreements like the one recently announced between Novell & Microsoft, various black box products that chip away at the edges of the GPL license. But I am not truly capable of articulating the topic but this guy is... http://www.redhat.com/magazine/020jun06/features/video_moglen/ Craig
