gpl

Related: AGPL, copyleft, General Public License, GNU, GPLv2, GPLv3, GPLv4, IOTA

Every GNU GPL is a Free as in Freedom Trade Agreement between object instance owners that causes object users to gain source control.

The GNU GPL insures user freedom in the immaterial realm by guaranteeing access to virtual sources.

The GNU IOTA insures user freedom in the material realm by guaranteeing access to physical sources.

The GNU GPL is enforced between instance owners (who may or may not be the 'developers' of that object) 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.  The GNU GPLv2 says "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope."

"'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

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.

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

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

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

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

'mrchaotica' at Slashdot.org/articles/04/11/14/2130249.shtml >>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.

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

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

Blogs.ITToolbox.com/linux/locutus/archives/the-gpl-eula-and-bsd-licenses-whos-the-target-14350 >>It is not aimed at end users. It is not aimed at companies. It is aimed and applies only to software developers.

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?

News.com.com/Red+Hat+couches+Microsoft-Novell+pact+as+a+Linux+win/2100-7344_3-6132323.html >>Red Hat couches Microsoft-Novell pact as a Linux win

LXer.com/module/newswire/view/76270 >>Microsoft answers IP questions posed in LXer open letter

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

GPLPedia.com >>GPLpedia.com is a place for open source enthusiasts like yourself to discover, share & upload content related to open source software from anywhere on the web in a very organized fashion. From the biggest online destinations to the most obscure bog, GPLpedia.com has the best content submitted by our users.

Lists.GPL-Violations.org/pipermail/legal

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

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

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

BusinessWeek.com/technology/content/aug2004/tc20040813_1107_tc120.htm >>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

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.

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.

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

Linux.Coconia.net/politics/kmodsGPL.htm >>Kernel Modules and the GPL

Funambol.com >>Honest Public License