The first draft of GNU General Public License Version 3 will be unveiled next week at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Mass., but that milestone is likely to be more of a beginning than an ending. The release of the draft will kick off months of debate over the content and exact wording of the license that will govern much open-source software for the foreseeable future.
Why don’t they just leave it at “ALL YOUR SOFTWARE ARE BELONG TO STALLMAN” and be done with it?
Note to the humourless/fanboy/zealot b*tches: THIS IS A JOKE. LAUGH. LIKE THIS: LOL
I don’t agree *at all* with your sentiments regarding free software, but, that got a laugh from me (and a one plus moderation)! Thanks for the chickle 🙂
Greg
That’s “chuckle”, not “chickle.”
you know you CAN edit your own posts, right?
Thanks!
Yet the post is at -4 anyway. Thanks, 14-year-old Linux-loving fanboys! Learn to laugh. It doesn’t hurt.
Probably would be better, if it actually was funny.
If one needs to point out it’s a joke, it’s not a joke. At least not a funny one.
I’ve seen posts from you much more funny that this one. Try again
I pointed out the joke precisely for the kind of people who have modded me down and replied with a correction. I *know* what the GPL says, people. I *know* what Stallman raves on about.
Raging Linux fanboys usually will react emotionally to anything remotely anti-Linux/anti-GPL, that’s why I put a disclaimer along with my post stating that IT WAS A JOKE.
You’re ridiculous dude. You are the *first* and so far the *only* one to mention Linux and/or Stallman, yet you continue to act as if somebody’s talking about Linux here.
Maybe you would get more than -4 if you didn’t call people “bitches” and didn’t have a sense of humor that even dead people wouldn’t want.
Put the Kool-Aid down and get out of the RDF. The you might *learn* something.
Edited 2006-01-09 00:45
Right, because Stallman and GNU/Linux are completely unrelated to the GPL. I made a huge blunder mentioning them, eh?
Sounds like someone just can’t take a joke that is even quasi-anti-GPL. Sounds like someone is a raging GPL fanboy.
Your joke wasn’t very funny, but hearing you whine about the modding is.
The joke might have been funnier coming from someone who didn’t have the name “Linux Is Poo”. I mean, it’s like listening to George Bush make a joke about Democrats; we already know he doesn’t like them, it’d be far funnier if Bill Clinton made the same joke
.
Besides, you did call everyone who didn’t find your joke funny a fanboy/zealout and a “b*tch” in the same post. Do you expect to not get modded just because you complained in advance?
-1 for bad taste.
-1000 for you for being a easily-offended pussy Republican.
😉
It’s an..ummm…joke. Don’t be too offended.
Not funny. Btw I am not a humourless/fanboy/zealot b*tch, it really was a lame joke.
Your attitude is more than evident with your username, and the GPL is nothing like what you wrote.
Try harder next time..
————
Whatever.
Ok, BTW, this license is extremely important because most free software I’ve seen has the ” Licensed under the terms of the GPL License Version 2 or later (at your option)” clause, therefore when GPL 3 comes out, most software will be under that License. However thinking about it I can still choose Version 2, if I am not satisfied by Version 3 ([cough]freedom[/cough]). Anyway I trust Version 3 will be great.
Thanks for the correction, Captain Obvious!
My disclaimer was precisely for the kind of person that *you* are. 🙂
More software will be under it … or .. the GPL 3.
At the users discretion. You won’t get to mix and match.
Edited 2006-01-09 01:26
“Note to the humourless/fanboy/zealot b*tches: THIS IS A JOKE. LAUGH. LIKE THIS: LOL”
Just because you consider something funny, doesn’t mean other people would do the same. Humor is a matter of personal taste, just like an OS is. Telling other people to laugh at something you for some reason consider funny is like telling them to adopt your sense of humor due to its implicit superiority. Especially when you make it clear that people who refuse to laugh at your jokes are “zealot b-tches”.
Now, as I have mentioned before, you shouldn’t be so negative towards “zealot b-tches” because, quite frankly, you are one. Any person who makes a point to insult an OS in their screen name is as much a “zealot b-tch” as the person who chooses use their screen name to praise the said OS. You are nothing but -( Linux Rox!!! ). Please note that even the most rabid Linux “zealot b-tches” don’t go as far as making such cheesy, cheap, and tacky screen names. Pat yourself on the back, pal: you’ve outperformed those “zealot b-tches” in the immaturity department. Don’t you feel special?
Your “joke” was as funny as listening to George W. Bush make an idiot of himself yet again by attempting an impromptu speech.
> The goal is to have the new license in use by early
> next year, about the time Windows Vista ships and
> before Windows Server “Longhorn” heads out the door,
> thereby putting pressure on Microsoft Corp. and its
> proprietary licensing policy and constant-upgrade
> model, a source said.
I don’t think this will work. The presence of the license alone doesn’t put pressure on MS. It’s popular programs *using* the license which does. People don’t say, “hey, some guy has come up with a license that allows me to copy software freely and tinker with it, but nobody uses it. Let’s specifically blame MS for not using it”.
Instead, if some popular programs are around under GPL (or now, GPL 3), they might say “hey, $POPULAR_PROGRAM does not only work well, I can also copy it and even change something if I don’t like it. MS should do the same.” Especially, if some company still makes money with it (however this works – making the thing so crappy that you need paid support to use will probably not make the program popular).
Of course, with GPL 2 already around, version 3 won’t have as hard a day becoming popular.
– Morin
Take your own advice and don’t troll, hypocrite!
While nobody I know holds any ill-will towards the GPL and the FSF (or Stallman), since first hearing about this new version of the GPL (#3), I’ve wondered what the point of the rewrite was.
Beyond what’s been said publicly, in all seriousness, the GPL has been accused by many of having no real teeth since it’s never been tested in court.
Since there are no legal precedents (that I’ve ever heard of) being set either in favor or against the GPL, what event or events caused the need for the rewrite?
Update: I found this after submitting my comment. http://www.boingboing.net/2004/09/04/gpl_court_challenge_.html This is regarding IPTABLES and is dated September 2004. The ruling was by a German Court which upheld the GPL. Good translation in the additional links.
Edited 2006-01-09 13:03
Oh well, you beat me to it then. However, what kind of influence could the ruling in Germany have in USA? It’s importance is quite obvious for other european countries, Denmark for an instance.
Personally, I cannot see how the GPL can be unconstitutional. You’re not forced to use it, and it gives you full access for the price of full access (if you take my point).
Isn’t challenging the GPL in court what SCO is trying (and failing) to do now? And haven’t corporations already been sued by the FSF for attempting to circumvent it?
Isn’t challenging the GPL in court what SCO is trying (and failing) to do now?
No it’s not.
SCO is trying something completely different. They are “claiming” that “their” intellectual property has been put into the Linux kernel.
If you really want to find out about this case, go and have a look at groklaw.
alan.