revised GPL?

[kmself at ix.netcom.com]

on Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 07:18:28PM -0400, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. (rod at cyberspaces.org) wrote:
> Your message has engaged my curiosity. Why are  discussions about open
> source/FSF licenses being held in secret? It seems to me that we all
> should be informed of not only the status of these discussions, but
> also the folks who are doing 'the discussing.'  I know IBM has a
> license, but it seems odd to hear that they are an insider on an issue
> as important as this one is for the open source movement. Please
> enlighten us further.

The following link and article may be of interest:

    http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=00/11/01/1636202

    Sneak preview of GPL v. 3: The business-friendly version
    Thursday November 02, 01:02 PM EST    [ Advocacy ] 
    By Eric Ries

    Those people who buy into the rhetoric about RMS and the Free
    Software movement may be surprised to learn that his latest effort
    to revise the GNU General Public License stems from his concerns
    about making the GPL more business friendly.

    ...

    A more major change would be a requirement to release modified
    source code for anyone who sets up a Web site providing access to a
    modified version of a program covered by the GPL.  Currently it is
    all too easy to circumvent the GPL by means of the so-called "ASP
    loophole."

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself at ix.netcom.com>     http://www.netcom.com/~kmself
 Evangelist, Zelerate, Inc.                      http://www.zelerate.org
  What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?      There is no K5 cabal
   http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/        http://www.kuro5hin.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20001102/22352116/attachment.sig>