[Solar-general] "no ideologicemos el concepto de software público "

[Ivan Vavrecka]

--- El vie, 8/19/11, Juan Carlos Gentile <jucar en hipatia.info> escribió:

> De: Juan Carlos Gentile <jucar en hipatia.info>
> Asunto: Re: [Solar-general] "no ideologicemos el concepto de software público "
> A: "La lista de todos y todas en solar" <solar-general en lists.ourproject.org>
> Fecha: viernes, 19 de agosto de 2011, 04:00 pm
> On Thursday 18 August 2011, Diego
> Saravia wrote:
> > > aun desde una filosofia talibana del SL,
> > 
> > eso es un insulto. que tienen que ver los talibanes
> con el soft libre?
> > 
> > > yo creo que HAY que ideologizar el tema,
> > 
> > El tema es ideologico, lamentablemente, en el sentido
> marxista y
> > peyorativo de la ideologia
> > 
> > es decir ideologia es lo que no es ciencia
> > 
> > 
> > lo que hay que hacer es politizar el tema
> > 
> > > lo que quedo claro en estas jornadas que hay un
> fuerte criterio,
> > > que seguramente pasara a ser el mas sustentable,
> > > que la licencia basica debe ser la GPL v 2.0,
> > 
> > por que no 3.0?
> > 
> 
> 
> mira esto:
> 
> droid GPLv2 termination worries: one more reason to upgrade
> to GPLv3
>  From: "Free Software Foundation" <info en fsf.org>
>  To: Hipatia <hipatia en hipatia.net>
>  
>   Distributors lose their rights when they violate
> GPLv2, but the Free
>   Software Foundation is more forgiving in its license
> enforcement to
>   encourage continued participation in the free
> software community.
>   GPLv3 has improved termination provisions to codify
> this approach,
>   giving developers one more reason to upgrade.
> 
> Thanks to Android's commercial success, the kernel Linux,
> which is
> released under the GNU General Public License (GPL) version
> 2, is
> being distributed more than ever before.  Whenever
> someone distributes
> GPL-covered software, they must follow a few conditions set
> forth in
> the license.  These conditions try to give anyone who
> receives the
> software both the legal permission and the practical tools
> necessary
> to change and share the software themselves if they wish.
> 
> Not all of the companies that distribute Android heed
> these
> conditions.  We've witnessed an uptick in GPL
> violation
> reports--some convincing, others incomplete or
> misinformed--against these vendors.  We generally
> can't pursue
> these violations directly, because only copyright holders
> can enforce
> free software licenses in most countries, and few Android
> devices use
> FSF-copyrighted code.  However, people still seek out
> our opinions
> about the relevant parts of the GPL, and that discussion
> has recently
> turned to GPLv2's termination provisions.  Section 4
> of the license
> says, "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute
> the
> Program except as expressly provided under this License.
> Any attempt
> otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the
> Program is
> void, and will automatically terminate your rights under
> this
> License."

es cierto lo que aclaras !

uno de los criterios para referir la v2 
es que de esta se puede pasar a una v3, 
pero no a la inversa,

pero no es algo que no es un dogma, por el contrario, 
estimo que aportes como los que has hecho ayudaran a tener
mejores opciones...