Durante questa estate mi e’ capitato di leggere diversi commenti e critiche conseguenti all’uscita della nuova versione della GPL; due per tutti : Linus Torvalds e Patrizio Tassone , ambedue da me stimati per il loro lavoro e contributo alla “causa” del software libero.
Non ritengo assolutamente le critiche mosse alla GPLV3, incoerenti and without foundation, rather they are valid and targeted to the problem, if you feel that the way to the spread of free software, should be (even) through the channel of the business of profit and capital.
It 's true, let in the capital and Open Source' the easiest way to make it competitive (but not necessarily better) than proprietary software, but who needs this? who said it should be at all costs? I believe that getting to "win" in this way is not so 'rewarding for the community.
According to many people with GPL3 you run the risk that large companies with restrictions on their patents will not feel most expedient and convenient to invest in Free Software and then? Who has something to do with Larry and Bill? their interests and their ideas are at odds with mine, if at this moment are investing large capital are certainly not a pleasure for us, if they decide not to invest will mean that we would do without.
The capital '(unfortunately) a great way to quickly expand a field of activity, however, brings with it many "side effects", I believe that GPLv3 tries to put a barricade to not make the world an Open Source Another ground of "conquest" and indiscriminate exploitation. By its very nature and "contradiction" capital needs new markets to continue to exist, GPLv3 tries to stop and take advantage of this Achilles heel, for the good of the community, for the preservation and production of software for free from defects.
So though the introduction of GPLv3 will result in a removal of capital, I think that the counter will be taken to continue to produce good software and wait for the moment (not necessarily close in time) in which the need for new by capital markets will be inevitable, then the meeting between the community and big business will resume at that point, however, the community will be more mature and more consapevole della sua forza e quindi meno disposta ad un approccio schiacciante.
La mia impressione attuale e’ che ci sia una lotta accaparramento indiscriminato e il grado di “purezza” del software libero si stia progressivamente deteriorando, la GPLV3 sta cercando di “ostacolare” questo. Obbiettivamente devo dire che la semplicità d’uso e spesso la qualità e’ migliorata, ad esempio non posso negare che le installazioni di GNU Linux sono molto più facili e affidabili di prima ma se il prezzo da pagare e’ questo, preferisco tornare ad ammattire come qualche anno fa’.
Sicuramente la GPLV3 non e’ la versione definitiva che risolve tutti i problemi del mondo, main results of the first two basic needs easier and solved in the short term, the other as a project to evaluate long-term
Non ritengo assolutamente le critiche mosse alla GPLV3, incoerenti and without foundation, rather they are valid and targeted to the problem, if you feel that the way to the spread of free software, should be (even) through the channel of the business of profit and capital.
It 's true, let in the capital and Open Source' the easiest way to make it competitive (but not necessarily better) than proprietary software, but who needs this? who said it should be at all costs? I believe that getting to "win" in this way is not so 'rewarding for the community.
According to many people with GPL3 you run the risk that large companies with restrictions on their patents will not feel most expedient and convenient to invest in Free Software and then? Who has something to do with Larry and Bill? their interests and their ideas are at odds with mine, if at this moment are investing large capital are certainly not a pleasure for us, if they decide not to invest will mean that we would do without.
The capital '(unfortunately) a great way to quickly expand a field of activity, however, brings with it many "side effects", I believe that GPLv3 tries to put a barricade to not make the world an Open Source Another ground of "conquest" and indiscriminate exploitation. By its very nature and "contradiction" capital needs new markets to continue to exist, GPLv3 tries to stop and take advantage of this Achilles heel, for the good of the community, for the preservation and production of software for free from defects.
So though the introduction of GPLv3 will result in a removal of capital, I think that the counter will be taken to continue to produce good software and wait for the moment (not necessarily close in time) in which the need for new by capital markets will be inevitable, then the meeting between the community and big business will resume at that point, however, the community will be more mature and more consapevole della sua forza e quindi meno disposta ad un approccio schiacciante.
La mia impressione attuale e’ che ci sia una lotta accaparramento indiscriminato e il grado di “purezza” del software libero si stia progressivamente deteriorando, la GPLV3 sta cercando di “ostacolare” questo. Obbiettivamente devo dire che la semplicità d’uso e spesso la qualità e’ migliorata, ad esempio non posso negare che le installazioni di GNU Linux sono molto più facili e affidabili di prima ma se il prezzo da pagare e’ questo, preferisco tornare ad ammattire come qualche anno fa’.
Sicuramente la GPLV3 non e’ la versione definitiva che risolve tutti i problemi del mondo, main results of the first two basic needs easier and solved in the short term, the other as a project to evaluate long-term
- find a compromise that could combine to mixed use with earlier versions and other licenses Free / Open, not so much to reduce the impact of GPLv3, but rather to facilitate the transition, and dissemination.
- find formulas in the license to promote and to disseminate further the possibility of a single developer (freelance) to be able to live than it produces, probably the difficulty arises from the massive competition from large companies with a strong marketing, perhaps regulating the use in enterprise environments, there would be returns and opportunities for the individual programmer. (This' but an issue that should be treated separately because it requires a careful evaluation to avoid deviations from the GPL and its purpose).
Probably my judgments may be more ideological that realistic, but estimates do not think the GPL can only be a matter of law or legal, within it there is 'much more there is' a thought, an alternative, a different way of approaching human creativity and inventiveness and purposes it has to accomplish.
Leonardo Benelli
