GPL License with clause for Web use?

simo simo.sorce at
Thu Nov 22 15:11:36 UTC 2007

On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 14:33 +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> MJ Ray <mjr at> writes:
> >> This looks like a mistake in categories.html.  I'll mail FSF about this.
> >
> > Rather, it's a mistake in GPLv3 *iff* it should be a strong copyleft.
> That's only true if the core value of copyleft is that no more requirements
> can be added.
> I've always thought that preserving the four freedoms for downstream users
> was the core value of copyleft.  And I think the GNU project have made this
> clear over and over again.
> Banning additional restrictions was a means to protecting the four freedoms.
> In the GPLv3 process, it was realised that strict adherence to this was not
> necessary to protect the four freedoms and that a bit of flexibility can
> solve some licence incompatibility issues.

Ciaran, you fell in Mj Ray's trap with both feet. 
You are confusing restrictions with requirements.

GPLv3 added new requirements not new restrictions from my POV.
Of course any requirements can be spelt as a restriction from the point
of view of the distributor, but the point of view of the GPL is to
protect *user*'s freedom not distributors freedom.

> > FSF changing its basic guidance to create retrospective continuity is
> > the wrong way to fix this,
> You're saying that mistakes on webpages should be obeyed forever? 

Mj Ray is playing rhetorical tricks here.
Nothing more effective that someone bitter that try to find faults at
all costs and is confrontational.


More information about the Discussion mailing list