* Craig Skinner <craig.skinner@kepax.co.uk> [2007-09-14 02:58]:
quoted text
> Daniel Ouellet wrote:
> >
> >Look to me if a corporation wanted to kill the open source, they 
> >couldn't pick a better way to do it and here the GPL is walking right 
> >into it! Or may be some guys are well paid to create the problem and 
> >destroy from inside what they can't kill from outside.
> 
> Off topic, but there's a thought......
> 


	Or maybe they wish to screw up both the BSD license and works
licensed under the the GPL (v2) as linux uses it - so they can push
forward the GPL v3 - which Linus doesn't like and won't distribute
linux under. 

	Let's not forget who the SFLC really is. They are an FSF spinoff.
I'd love to belive they are who they say they are - an unbiased
champion of free software of all types. But when one of the primary
people involved in it is the author of the GPL version 3, and they
start acting in ways like this that seem to be giving the people they
are supposed to be advising very bad advice, I can't help but think
there might be a hidden agenda there. 

	I mean, what better way to promote a complex, vague legal
document like the GPL v3 than creating acrimony between users of
both the established and relatively simple licensing methods and 
then stepping up and saying "see see, we're lawyers, and this complex
legal document is the way to fix it - put this on your code - you
don't need to understand the implications or details, we say it's
better, we're lawyers"

	Doesn't this simply sound like making free software developers
and users lose their freedoms and work they've authored? Who wins? 
probably the people who want to sell legal advice to people about
complying with the GPL. I guess it's great if you're a lawyer.

	-Bob