GMP forked; Torbjorn Granlund: "blatant falsehoods and sinister insinuations"

[Roberto Bagnara]

William Stein wrote:
> A company-wide requirement at Microsoft is that they do not run any
> GPLv3 code, not even binaries.  This is not surprising in light
> of numerous quotes by Stallman about how GPLv3 was designed
> partly to attack Microsoft.  For example:
> 
>  Stallman: "The point of the GPLv3 conditions that apply to the
>  Novell/Microsoft deal is to give the rest of the community a defense
>  against Microsoft's patent threats. If these conditions do their job,
>  the result will be that Microsoft never goes beyond threats, and the
>  community is safe."
>  http://www.technewsworld.com/story/must-read/59780.html?welcome=1212081285

Dear William,

I think you have got it backwards:  (L)GPLv3 is meant (among other things)
to protect us (the Free Software community) from patent threats,
not to attack anyone.

 From what you write one could deduce that the company-wide requirement
you mention is in place because RMS is unfriendly to someone or is thought
to have a nasty agenda on someone.

My interpretation is that there are much more serious reasons behind such
company-wide requirements.  A detailed and in-depth analysis of these
reasons may well reveal that (L)GPLv3 is doing its job.
All the best,

     Roberto

-- 
Prof. Roberto Bagnara
Computer Science Group
Department of Mathematics, University of Parma, Italy
http://www.cs.unipr.it/~bagnara/
mailto:bagnara at cs.unipr.it