Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's news. Earlier versions of the APSL were declared non-free because
> "The APSL does not allow you to make a modified version and use it for
> your own private purposes, without publishing your changes.":
It's not news. It may have been news when Affero GPL was listed, but
I don't see anything changed now.
[...]
> As I said to Lynn, feel free to consider what "private" meant and now
> means. Feel free to consider whether the Free Software Foundation made
> plain years ago that a free software licence could [...]
I'll bow to your superior knowledge of past FSF pronouncements. When do
you feel that they were unclear that their aim was for users to have
access to the source code of the software that they used?
Maybe some of them erred in the past, when the web was young. If so,
then this correction is a good thing, isn't it? They're not forever
bound by past mistakes which are in conflict with their aims.
[Google problem]
> Yes, and it's OK. I'd rather have that than a leech mentality that
> promotes entitlement to source code simply because one accesses an
> electronic communications service.
Funny. Most people talk about "using google" instead of "accessing
the google site" or similar. I'd rather we didn't slip back to begging
software lords for changes.
[...non-free...]
> That you had to snip the Debian Social Contract in order to disagree
> with me is telling.
Only of your excessive word count. Sorry for snipping in a bad place.
The references header was intact. Anyway, I know what the SC says and
those are the bounds we work in. Doesn't mean that I have to do anything
for it, like it or encourage it.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ jabber://[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Thought: Edwin A Abbott wrote about trouble with Windows in 1884
