Metaprogramming and Free Availability of Sources

[Laurent Martelli]

>>>>> "RMS" == Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

  Faré>     So my question is, what do you recommend to overcome this
  Faré> incompatible license restriction?

  RMS> I would recommend that the other people make their licenses
  RMS> compatible with the GPL.

  RMS> The reason that the GPL's requirements are more stringent is
  RMS> that we try to be a real copyleft.  The other licenses you
  RMS> mentioned are not real copylefts--that makes it easier to be
  RMS> compatible with them.

  RMS> Copyleft is very important.  If I changed the GPL so that it
  RMS> was no longer a real copyleft, that might solve a certain
  RMS> amount of practical difficulty, but at the cost of abandoning
  RMS> copyleft, this would not be a good thing.

  Faré>     My solution is that any and all claim to "intellectual
  Faré> property" should be considered as null and void, being contrary
  Faré> to the most basic human rights.

In the absence of intellectual property, people could still distribute
binaries without the sources. But users would be free to copy them
without having to pay for licences. So in the end, I think that people
would rather choose software for which they have the sources, because
they won't be tied-up to the vendor.

  RMS> If we could change the law to require all software to be free,
  RMS> then the GPL would be neither possible nor necessary; all users
  RMS> would always have all the freedom that the GPL gives them.

  RMS> So this would solve the problem thoroughly--but it will be very
  RMS> hard to convince governments to make this change.

If a lot of people use copyleft licences and manage to earn a living
doing so, intellectual property will be useless. So we can hope that
it'll be abandonned.

-- 
Laurent Martelli
martelli@iie.cnam.fr