Redefining GPL?

Danese Cooper danese at
Thu Nov 30 06:29:18 UTC 2006

Well, we can certainly contact them about misuse of the logo,  
certainly.  We've teamed up with the FSF before in such cases.


On Nov 29, 2006, at 10:23 PM, Michael Bernstein wrote:

> On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 22:00 -0800, Danese Cooper wrote:
>> Michael,
>> As the GPL is written and maintained by the Free Software Foundation
>> (, you will get quickest results by taking your concerns
>> to them.  They have a full-time staff that works with GPL violators.
>> Be advised however that the current draft of GPLv3, which has been
>> through several drafts this year and is expected to be final sometime
>> next year, includes an additional trigger to close the loophole that
>> "performance" of code on a webserver might not be considered
>> distribution.  In other words, RMS might agree with them that this at
>> least is a reasonable modification.
> I am aware of the GPLv3 drafts and the Affero GPL precursor, but  
> this is
> different in the following ways:
> Unlike Affero, they didn't ask for permission to modify the GPL.
> Unlike the GPLv3 draft, this does not close the loophole by requiring
> that users be able to download the modified code, but by requiring the
> modifications be submitted to the original author. Similar  
> requirements
> have caused the OSI to reject licenses in the past.
> And, as I noted, they are misusing the OSI's logo by using it as an
> endorsement to publicize their release under the
> modified-without-authorization (and therefore non-OSI approved)  
> license.
> If you still think that the FSF is the right place (due to the license
> copyright violation) to go next, that's what I'll do.
> - Michael R. Bernstein

More information about the License-discuss mailing list