Re: RMS endorsement for the Compromise Public License...maybe

Bob La Quey wrote:
 >> I ask that you please stop calling the operating system Linux. The
 >> Linux kernel is just a small part of the operating system. Many of the
 >> software programs that make up the operating system you call Linux
 >> were not developed by Linus Torvalds at all. They were created by GNU
 >> Project volunteers, putting in their own personal time so that users
 >> might have a free operating system like the one we have today. To not
 >> acknowledge the contribution of those programmers is both impolite and
 >> a misrepresentation of history. That's why I ask that when you refer
 >> to the operating system, please call it by its proper name, GNU/Linux.
 >>         -- RMS
 >
 >
 > There is a long continuing discussion of this in the net-news group
 > comp.unix.admin. A good comment is:

This is just one of my .signatures created from a gnucookie I fortune in
my .bash_profile; it is not the topic of my email. On yours and Brett
Glass's comments, I am not interested in arguing about it. In the course
of the GNU Philosophy book project, I have read most of the FSF's
philosophy pages, and I mostly agree with them. If you have read them,
and you don't agree, that's fine, we can agree to disagree. (However, if
you have not, then I ask you to at least have a look at a few, or better
yet several, of them.) Besides, as a Free Software philosophy advocate,
I am greatly outnumbered here [on a WINE list].

However, thank you, Mr La Quey, for the observation on the quote; I
didn't really like it anyway, and will replace it with one that makes a
more important point than the credit thing.

 > The other quote was interesting. Generally I favor the GPL but I
 > can live with something like this:
 >
 > http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-license/2002/02/0224.html
 >
 > BTW in that message I invented an obvious name Compromise Public License
 > for this approach. I am curious if I started something,  or simply
 > rediscovered
 > and renamed something.

The article was added to the CVS archive on 2002/05/04, so I would
assume that he probably wrote it after your post, though that is not to
say he did or did not read your post.

I simply wanted to point out to anyone who follows Free Software that
something like the CPL *may* be an acceptable compromise, at least
according to RMS. Whether or not that agrees with your own principles is
up to you; i.e., I don't *believe* allowing any sort of proprietary
modifications is necessary (once again, I'm not arguing the point, just
giving an example).

-- 
Stephen Compall
DotGNU `Contributor' -- http://www.dotgnu.org

This societal shift is letting users take back control of their
futures. Just as the Magna Carta gave rights to British subjects, the
GPL enforces consumer rights and freedoms on behalf of the users of
computer software.
	-- Evan Leibovitch, "Who's Afraid of Big Bad Wolves"