Novell and SuSE

> I absolutely agree that the GPL allows you to put the software on the
> desks of all your employees without granting them these "freedoms." I'm
> merely pointing out that the GPL is therefor not a free software
> license by the FSF's own definition. After all they say "Free software
> is a matter of the *users'* freedom to run, copy, distribute, study,
> change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four
> kinds of freedom, for the *users* of the software:"(emphasis added).
> Now we seem to agree that the GPL isn't really about *users'* freedom
> at all but rather about corporate "freedom." Apparently you are OK with
> that. I'm not.

I don't think this is entirely fair to the GPL and FSF people. The GPL is
willing to treat a corporation as an artifical person, and therefore a
"user". In effect the GPL doesn't license software to humans who use
software, but to software using firms. Employees use the software in their
role as employees not as individuals (that is, one person firms).

Clearly the GPL is a pretty radical license, though it could go further. Of
course, I've worked in software shops that refuse to use GPL stuff because
they are afraid--terrified--it might infect their proprietary software, and
then they'd be royaly screwed.

If you create a software license so restrictive that a good ol' fashioned
greedy capitalist can't figure out how to do any development work and make a
buck ... that could be a problem too.