Comments on: GPL getting tougher on patent deals

Version 3 to block next Microsoft-Novell handshake? Latest draft aims to "prevent such deals from making a mockery of free software."

[mwendy]

GPL change means little unless governments involved

Make your choice. Private-to-private agreements - fine. Choose GPLv.(whatever) reflecting your personal preference and business model.

But, when governments get into the act of exclusively endorsing the GPL's license, then it's a whole different story. Right now, most all governments world-wide have wide open choice to pick amongst all models - and this results in, well, a lot of options. An exclsive GPLv.3 regime would reduce those choices, and will bring about fewer workable solutions for government customers and citizens. Period.

Through liberal governmnet one can justify most anything, usurping the rights of individuals because of "higher" state interests. We know that open choice - one that allows governments to choose freely amongst all models works. That's a pretty high state interest in my book, one that would caution against some of the attempts we're seeing stateside and overseas to implement GPL-oriented/preferred procurement regimes.

Private-to-private - choose the GPL v. etc., BSD, proprietary EULA. Whatever fits with your busines plan. But for governments - keep those options open.

[Penguinisto]

MSFT Astroturfers mean little unless they can come up with facts...

[i]"But, when governments get into the act of exclusively
endorsing the GPL's license, then it's a whole different story"[/i]

So what if they endorse the GPL? They buy software with
taxpayer money - whay shouldn't their citizens have free and
open access to the source code of software that the government
bought and paid for with citizen's tax money?

This has nothing to do with "liberal" vs. "conservative ideology -
it has to do with openness and transparency in government.

...so put down your bullhorn; we already know that your
benefactors at MSFT hate the idea.

/P