More radicalism

[Raju Mathur <raju@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bah, it's discriminatory.  What Philip proposes reads:

So I propose a new version of the GPL that would rectify this omission,
by preventing anyone from using GPL'd software if they had taken any
legal action against any free software program.
</QUOTE>

I agree that this would be a good kick in the nads for the MPAA/RIAA
and their hired goons^H^H^H^H^Hlawyers, but...

This is the thin edge of the wedge.  Next people will think up clauses
forbidding the use of GPL in countries where RSA is patented, by
lawyers who do any work for any of the organisations which had taken
action against GPL software, by their families, in countries where
cryptography is not permitted, by the so-called ``terrorist states'',
by China, by blacks, by Jews, uh, am I getting carried away?

And it's quite unenforceable as far as I can see.  What if one member
of the MPAA or RIAA doesn't agree with their suing Napster/Jon?  Will
that organisation be forced to forgo using GPL'd code too?  Or should
we extend it and say ``if you or your representative has taken legal
action against a GPL'd program and you have not gone on public record
condemning that action''.  Maybe we should define ``going on public
record'' too.  Argh!

In other words, even the ``bad guys'' have a right to use ``good
software'', since in my dictionary the definition of the first term
changes from time to time, while the second remains constant: free
software ;-)

Regards,

-- Raju

>>>>> "Arun" == Arun Sharma <adsharma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

    Arun> http://www.vision25.demon.co.uk/ip/gpl3.html