Hi all,
it is unfortunate that while other journalists had the presence of mind to realise confusion of a single journalist for what it was, Slashdot did not.
For your information, since Slashdot did not react to my request of clarification, I have posted the attached clarification to LWN.net to hopefully limit the spread of misinformation somewhat.
Also I'd like to add one more thing: So far I considered the "internet taxation" misinformation a secondary issue, much less important than the GPLv3 issue itself.
Unfortunately, when adding a fix for the worst misinformation about patents, the journalist also added more quotes and material to the issue on DRM and "internet taxation".
To make clear you know where this comes from and where I stand, let me point out that I did not advocate internet taxation when speaking with the journalist, nor do I think it is a good idea: Indeed I had long fights with people who suggested something like this during the United Nations World Summit on the Information Society.
The journalist asked me whether I knew of any alternatives to DRM, to which I said that many people advocate all sorts of different concepts, including cultural flatrates or production on demand models. When asked whether a cultural flatrate could be considered a kind of tax, I said this might be one way of looking at it.
I did not endorse any of these models, only said that alternatives to DRM are thinkable and that we should consider them, because I do consider DRM a very bad idea.
I am deeply sorry for that mess: It was the first time we worked with that particular journalist. My apologies for any confusion I may have caused.
Regards, Georg
------------------------------
Hi all,
there seems to be confusion spread about the GPLv3, based on a Reuters article published today and copied to several locations, including MSNBC from where Slashdot grabbed it. Unfortunately in this article Reuters displayed some items of pure speculation as facts and in doing so oversimplified them to the extent that they became false.
The true news is what you can see in this release: We have begun preparing the GPL Version 3 process for real and there will be a long discussion throughout 2006 about the changes made. Since that process will be quite a lot of work, the Free Software Foundations are very happy that Stichting NLnet supports this process and hope that others will do the same.
As to what the GPL version 3 draft will contain: Noone has that information right now, it is all in Richard Stallmans head, who has to gather the ideas and get to work on the draft. Until that draft has been published, everything is pure speculation and your guess is as good as mine.
Reuters picked up strongly on two of the the points which were made before by Eben Moglen in the eweek article and quoted me falsely. They later did some slight improvement in terms of reducing the oversimplification, but still portrayed things in a rather one-sided way, in particular making mere speculation seem fact, while ignoring the true facts.
So the best thing you can do is to ignore that article.
It is FUD and I am deeply sorry for this, for I have been centrally (if falsely) quoted as the contributor of it.
That has been a most unpleasant experience.
Regards, Georg Greve FSFE, President
------------------------------