> > You're *not* giving up the right not to distribute any source, because > > you can always refrain from distributing the corresponding binaries and > > have no obligation to provide source. > > > > You're *not* giving up the right to distribute binaries without > > distributing the corresponding source, because, without a license, you > > would not have the right to distribute binaries in the first place (with > > or without source). > > > > By accepting the GPL, you instead gain the right to distribute binaries > > with source, and you simply do *not* gain the right to distribute > > binaries without source. > > Similarly, by accepting the CDDL, you are not giving up the right to > choose a venue in case you get sued over the software; instead, you are > simply gaining the right to use, modify, and redistribute the software > under a given set of rules (which simply does not include "the right to > choose a court in which to settle disagreements"). That is what matters, > and that is what makes the software free. > > Even if my argument would be flawed (which I don't think it is, but just > in case), that wouldn't even matter. What matters is that DFSG#1 talks > about "a royalty or other fee"--i.e. money--not "giving up rights"; and > any interpretation of the text that says it does talk about giving up > rights is incorrect to begin with.
I am not a specialist, but in France, private use of a work cannot be denied (as well as private copy, in some measure). Whether this applies only to countries following "author rights" doctrine instead of "copyrights", I let it to someone more knowledgeable in this field. Of course, private means private (not the "familial group"). -- JCD -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
