Ils sont très drôles, ils se croient chez l'Open Source Initiative. Dudes, c'est la Free Software Foundation. La gpl v3 corrige les failles qui n'étaient pas prévues à la naissance de la v2 et qui n'auraient pas existé à grande échelle à l'époque. Elle a pour centre le droit de celui qui reçoit le logiciel, comme l'indique ce passage de la gpl v2 :
"To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights. "
Les DRM dans le hardware, associé à du logiciel libre, peut devenir une violation du droit moral du point de vue de Richard Stallman. En ce sens, c'est normal que la gpl v3 concentre son combat sur ce sujet.
Plus intéressant, le point de vue de Luis Villa sur l'affaire : http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/09/22/what-the-kernel-guys-are-a(...) http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/09/22/what-the-kernel-guys-got-w(...) What the kernel guys really seem to want is a GPL 2.1 which reflects their very pragmatic approach to open source- take, as long as you give back. Past that, do whatever. What the FSF- and particularly Richard- wants is a GPL which reflects the FSF’s long-term approach to free software, where patents and DRM are another restriction (like binary software) that could reduce freedoms. Nothing in GPL v3 is inconsistent with FSF’s very long-term mission- to increase what they see as Freedom.
La "balkanisation" annoncée n'est rien d'autre qu'une différence qui va se marquer encore plus profondément entre partisans de l'Open Source et partisans du Free Software.
# Rigolos.
Posté par mobutu . En réponse à la dépêche Controverses autour de la version 3 de la licence GPL. Évalué à 10.
"To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights. "
Les DRM dans le hardware, associé à du logiciel libre, peut devenir une violation du droit moral du point de vue de Richard Stallman. En ce sens, c'est normal que la gpl v3 concentre son combat sur ce sujet.
Plus intéressant, le point de vue de Luis Villa sur l'affaire :
http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/09/22/what-the-kernel-guys-are-a(...)
http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/09/22/what-the-kernel-guys-got-w(...)
What the kernel guys really seem to want is a GPL 2.1 which reflects their very pragmatic approach to open source- take, as long as you give back. Past that, do whatever. What the FSF- and particularly Richard- wants is a GPL which reflects the FSF’s long-term approach to free software, where patents and DRM are another restriction (like binary software) that could reduce freedoms. Nothing in GPL v3 is inconsistent with FSF’s very long-term mission- to increase what they see as Freedom.
La "balkanisation" annoncée n'est rien d'autre qu'une différence qui va se marquer encore plus profondément entre partisans de l'Open Source et partisans du Free Software.