Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes: > On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 06:08:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > The GPL's source distribution requirement actually augments the > > freedom of the possessor of the code > > You say that like the "possessor" of the code is somehow special, but > the user of the code, and the author of the code aren't. I don't find > that remotely reasonable.
Let's take the argument more slowly then, because perhaps I'm skipping steps and that's making it hard to follow. The fundamental premise of free software is that copyright is an artificial limitation on what I can do whit a piece of software, and that I should be able to modify it and copy it. The reason that the possessor is special is that the only thing stopping the possessor from modifying or copying is the copyright law. Think here of public domain as a sort of zero-point: if a thing is public domain, what rights do I have? I have the right to modify it, and to copy it, and the basic premise of free software is that I should have those rights for all software. (The "four freedoms" of the FSF spell out this basic premise more carefully; I don't mean to be setting up some different standard than that one.) The user of the code, when that's different from the possessor, is often inhibited from copying or modifying by things *other* than just the copyright--importantly, his physical lack of access, among other things. > > The source-distribution requirement *is* a real pain for some people, > > but since it isn't an imposition on freedom, there is no problem. > > You keep saying that, but it _is_ an imposition on "freedom", and a > very significant one. Just ask the folks who license their code under > a BSDish license. Let me be more explicit, then. The fundamental idea is that the possessor of a copy should be able to make copies and modifications. The GPL says that you can't *remove* this right from a third party. The BSD license says that you *can* do it through the mechanism of compilation. The GPL also has the "viral" property that it applies to the entire program; the BSD license does not. In both these cases, the imposition is in the category of "a genuine pain". But it's not an imposition on *freedom* (or rather, the imposition on *freedom* is negligible). Why? Because the only significant "freedom" that it limits is the "freedom" to *remove* *other* *people's* *freedom*. But the "freedom to oppress other people" is not a genuine freedom. > I've already said both these things to you, I'm not sure why you're still > saying the same old things instead of either accepting the difference > of opinion or coming up with deeper analyses. It's obvious we have a difference of opinion. I think we have both explained our points of view quite well indeed. The only reason I wrote mine again was because you said that I "hadn't made any arguments" that distinguished the GPL from the sort of forced-disclosure licenses that I am arguing against. That you may not think my arguments prove the point is obvious, since we have a disagreement. But there's a difference between "haven't made any arguments" and "we have a disagreement." Of course we have a disagreement. Thomas
