Linux license overhaul, a FUD?
Well, i have suspicions about this news report:
No, i don't believe that the "news" about writing a third version of GPL is disinformation.
I am rather refering to the way that this is recently being published in the news. And this is a rather tricky part because, if this is some kind of a subtle FUD attempt, many of free software and open source advocates wont recognize it that well.
This is actually something incinerator pointed out to me, that all this GPL rewriting talk may actually be a FUD on a mission to blur the current GPL's capabilitie to handle free software including the blooming gnu/linux.
Now, why am i putting this article under suspicion?
Here is why..
1.) There are some things in this article being repeated as they were already published in another article recently, such as this:
from this article:
"It is going to be a screaming match some days, but it is going to be a noble effort when it's over," Moglen said. And in the end, "Nobody, dare I say even Mr. Stallman, will get from this process everything he wants."
from another older article:
"The dignity of every stakeholder must and will be respected. No one will get everything they want, including Mr. Stallman, but everyone will feel heard............." he said.
2.) Some very "controversal" quotes:
"There are restrictions in the GPL today that prevent us from doing anything with it," Taylor said. Microsoft prefers licenses that permit software to be used in proprietary projects as well.
Alright, he didn't say anything new, he just put it like GPL was one "mean" license which really provides soo much restrictions that it prevents you "from doing anything with it".
This however is a real mess:
The CDDL, like the GPL, lets anyone change software but requires that those changes be publicly released. Unlike the GPL, though, the CDDL permits a tight coupling between its open-source components and other proprietary components.
"If people want to use the GPL and integrate with it, they have to adopt the proprietary license called the GPL," said Sun President Jonathan Schwartz in an interview this month. "Basically it forces your hand. You don't have any choice anymore."
Should i add anything? GPL proprietary? Oh i can just imagine a guy that's just learning what linux and free software is reading this and thinking: "man, this GPL is a really bad deal"..
3.) These two articles are not the only ones recently speaking up about rewritting GPL. There are probably at least two more published that deal with the same subject. It makes you wonder really.. Why is that suddenly such a "hot topic", i mean, of course it is a hot topic, but why write news articles that practically repeat what's already being said? Why raising so much noise about GPL being rewritten, overhauled.. whatever? Yeah, i'll be blunt, could it be that they are trying to blackpaint GPL as it is now to be a "bad license" that needs to be changed ASAP?
You be the judge, if you think this falls to the "FUDZilla" category, i'll be compelled to take that "drastic" measure and put this up to the FUDZilla FUD listing with a link to this thread in the explanation.