> But I'm not sure these are actually the "intent" of GPLv2, which I think would mean what Stallman et. al were advocating back then. I don't buy it. If you t

> But I'm not sure these are actually the "intent" of GPLv2, which I think would mean what Stallman et. al were advocating back then. I don't buy it. If you think about the commercial Unix systems in the 80's that GNU was started as an alternative to, the threat to cut off a customer from all future updates would have been just as prohibitive as it is with Red Hat today. Admittedly, with security being more important now than it was then, it's more critical now to get a steady stream of minor security updates. But being cut off from major updates is prohibitive too, given that most customers expect to stay on the system for years, both now and then. And those commercial Unixes were less compatible with each other than modern Linux distros are with each other, so the switching cost would have been higher. (Disclaimer: I wasn't around in the 80's; this is based on what I've gathered rather than personal knowledge.) Given that context, let's look at Stallman's definition of free software from 1987, four years before GPLv2: [1] > The word "free" in [the Free Software Foundation's] name does not refer to price; it refers to freedom. First, the freedom to copy a program and redistribute it to your neighbors, so that they can use it as well as you. Second, the freedom to change a program, so that you can control it instead of it controlling you; for this, the source code must be made available to you. Here is Stallman waxing poetic on the same concept in 2001 (so after GPLv2, but I think it's fair to say his thinking hasn't changed much): [2] > A program is free software for you, a particular user, if you have the following freedoms: > [..] > Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing copies of the program. > [..] > Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing copies of the program. Now, for beings that can think and learn, sharing useful knowledge is a fundamental act of friendship. When these beings use computers, this act of friendship takes the form of sharing software. Friends share with each other. Friends help each other. This is the nature of friendship. And, in fact, this spirit of goodwill -- the spirit of helping your neighbor, voluntarily -- is society's most important resource. It makes the difference between a livable society and a dog-eat-dog jungle. Its importance has been recognized by the world's major religions for thousands of years, and they explicitly try to encourage this attitude. Do you really think the person who wrote this would have been satisfied with 'you can technically share the code with your neighbor, but only if you are ready to immediately migrate away from said code because you can no longer receive updates'? [1] https://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull3.html https://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull3.html [2] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt