Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes: > > You have articulated a difference between "cannot" and "don't want > > to", but as I think I showed, that difference doesn't bear up in this > > case. > > You haven't made any arguments that don't apply equally well to the GPL > as compared to the BSD.
Yes I have, but since they seem to have been lost, I'll repeat them. The GPL's source distribution requirement actually augments the freedom of the possessor of the code; the point being that a free license *must* permit modification, but distribution as binary-only is a subterfuge to avoid actually permitting modification. Accordingly, the GPL requires that you distribute in the *form* that allows modification. The other conditions on the GPL (the requirement to log changes, the no-warranty disclaimer for interactive programs) *are* inhibitions on freedom, but they don't make in non-free precisely because complying with them isn't a real pain for anyone. The source-distribution requirement *is* a real pain for some people, but since it isn't an imposition on freedom, there is no problem. In otherwords, impositions on freedom are allowed if and only if they are not a genuine pain for anyone. Things which actually directly *augment* the freedom to change and distribute tho code, are allowed in a free license whether or not they are a genuine pain. Thomas
