|
From: | amicus_curious |
Subject: | Re: Is the GPL all encompassing? |
Date: | Sun, 21 Sep 2008 13:26:10 -0400 |
"Hyman Rosen" <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message news:%xmBk.108$Aw3.93@fe109.usenetserver.com...
amicus_curious wrote:My belief is that the GPL is totally unnecessary because what it> seeks to prevent isn't a viable outcome to beging with. It seeks to prevent a software user from being unable to run, read, change, or share a program. Since software users are routinely denied these freedoms, I fail to see why you think what the GPL prevents is not a viable outcome.
I would agree that providing source code itself is enough to enable a user to do all of that regardless of the fact that changes are so unlikely to ever occur. The GPL only adds a provision to enforce this on someone who might be unwilling to do so with some improvement absent the requirement to divulge any new source. I think that this would never happen in any case. I don't think that it has ever happened in the past either. Who but the project team has ever made any change to any major project?
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |