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

Roberto Bagnara bagnara at
Fri May 30 11:11:04 CEST 2008

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."

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,


Prof. Roberto Bagnara
Computer Science Group
Department of Mathematics, University of Parma, Italy
mailto:bagnara at

More information about the gmp-discuss mailing list