general public license

Related: AGPL, GPL, GPLv3, GPLv3.FSF.org, GPLv4

The Free Software Foundation's GNU General Public License was originally written by RMS for GNU Emacs.

Microsoft.com/presspass/misc/07-05statement.mspx >>Microsoft Statement About GPLv3

GPL3.Palamida.com >>Welcome to Our GPL v3 Information Site    Our goal is to build a unified view of the status of GPLv3 adoption and usage across the community. Of course, it's a moving target and we'll do our best to keep it up to date. You can help — please feel free to send us updated information that we should add and we'll be happy to do so. And suggestions for improvements are always welcome.

"When we talk about computer users' freedom, we mean computer users -- not computer programmers, not the most powerful people in society," -- Peter Brown at http://ITManagement.EarthWeb.com/article.php/31771_3683791_3

Answering http://GPLv3.FSF.org/wiki/index.php/Talk:Main_Page "'Who really is the YOU in the GPL?'"

My short answer is that the GPL is enforced between instance owners (who are initially also the workers) for the purpose of insuring Freedom for every User.  RMS and Moglen speak of "User Freedom", never of "Worker Freedom" or "Owner Freedom".

The GNU General Public License is not an EULA.  GPLv2 says "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope."

CyberSource.com.au/cyber/about/comparing_the_gpl_to_eula.pdf

"'The GPL only comes into force when you make and distribute copies of software.'" -- comment at EULAScan.com/product.aspx?pid=59

"'... the GPL really has no impact on how you use the program at all. The GPL concerns itself only with distributing and modifying programs.'" -- AWProfessional.com/articles/article.asp?p=212176&seqNum=7&rl=1

"'The GPL is not an EULA, by definition. The GPL covers distribution only, not use, while an EULA is explicitly an "End User License Agreement." You can reject the GPL and still use GPL software any way you please, as long as you don't redistribute it.'" -- 'mrchaotica' at Slashdot.org/articles/04/11/14/2130249.shtml

"The EULA, the GPL and the Wisdom of Fortune Cookies" -- LinuxInsider.com/story/34292.html

"'This matrix tries to express some proprietary-EULA, GPL, CDDL and BSD licenses in terms of the rights in copyrights and patent rights.'" "Copyrights, Licenses and CDDL Illustrated" -- Blogs.SUN.com/chandan/entry/copyrights_licenses_and_cddl_illustrated

"'It is not aimed at end users. It is not aimed at companies. It is aimed and applies only to software developers.'" "The GPL, EULA and BSD licenses. Who's the target?" -- Blogs.ITToolbox.com/linux/locutus/archives/the-gpl-eula-and-bsd-licenses-whos-the-target-14350

Sapnakumar.org/EnfGPL.pdf

RosenLaw.com/GPLv3-Comments.htm

GNU.org/cgi-bin/license-quiz.cgi >>Take the Free Software licensing quiz and test your knowledge of the GPL and LGPL.'"

DWheeler.com/blog/2006/09/01/#gpl-bsd >>Yes, companies could voluntarily cooperate without a license forcing them to.  The *BSDs try to depend on this.  But it today's cutthroat market, that's more like the "Prisoner's Dilemma".  In the dilemma, it's better to cooperate; but since the other guy might choose to not cooperate, and exploit your naivete, you may choose to not cooperate.  A way out of this dilemma is to create a situation where you must cooperate, and the GPL does that.

LinuxDevices.com/articles/AT2003051251.html >>Will GPLv3 energize Free Software, or marginalize the FSF?

"'Red Hat couches Microsoft-Novell pact as a Linux win'" -- http://news.com.com/Red+Hat+couches+Microsoft-Novell+pact+as+a+Linux+win/2100-7344_3-6132323.html

"'Microsoft answers IP questions posed in LXer open letter'" -- http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/76270/index.html

OpenSource.sys-con.com/read/302979.htm >>Daniel Wallace, who has been fighting a quixotic pro se battle against the GPL on antitrust grounds, has lost his appeal to the United Stated Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

LWN.net/Articles/200422 >>Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

KernelTrap.org/node/7238 >>Posted by coriordan on Thursday, October 19

OZLabs.org/~rusty/index.cgi/tech/2006-09-26.html

FSFEurope.org/projects/gplv3/bangalore-rms-transcript >>patents, propagation

david.woodhou.se/gplfoo.txt >>distro

"'Kernel Modules and the GPL'" -- http://linux.coconia.net/politics/kmodsGPL.htm

"'The GPL is very close to being the constitution of an industry.'" -- http://EWeek.com/article2/0,1895,1732567,00.asp

"'Founders Strive to 'Do No Evil' in GPL 3 Process'" -- http://EWeek.com/article2/0,1895,1846526,00.asp

"'A Big Fly in the Open-Source Soup
Linux is burdened with too much intellectual-property uncertainty for many companies to embrace and develop it further '" -- BusinessWeek.com/technology/content/aug2004/tc20040813_1107_tc120.htm

Nutters.org/docs/wildstrom >>Stephen H. Wildstrom appearing in BusinessWeek online, entitled A Big Fly in the Open-Source Soup writes "How does software owned by everyone and by no one survive in a world where copyrights and patents shape the legal landscape?" But any open source software which becomes successful enough to be worthy of note attains that status while carrying this alleged disadvantage, so where's the crisis?

GPL-Violations.org >>The ultimate goal is to make vendors of GPL licensed software understand that GPL is not public domain, and that there are license conditions that are to be fulfilled.