>>Lack of forced distribution is not "censorship". Get a clue, or a >>dictionary. > > Heh. > > "Why that ugly, non-free GPL license demand from me to >distribute source code? Source would still be freely available from >the FSF website! Lack of forced distribution do not harm a >freedom!" Agree?
Now you've changed the terms of your argument; I guess you admit that it's not 'censorship'. Good. :-) In response to your new, different argument: When I distribute GPL'ed binaries, I do not in fact have to distribute source with them. I could also distribute, for instance: * a written offer to provide source * a copy of the written offer to provide source which I received But more importantly, if I make a *modified version* of a GPL'ed program, I only have to distribute source to my *modified version*. I do *not* have to distribute the source code to the FSF's version of GCC when I distribute my hacked-up version! If I make a *modified version* of a GFDL'ed manual, no matter how dramatically altered, I still have to distribute the *original* Invariant Sections. The situations are not similar. I will not reply to any further nonsense on your part. If you have something sensible and rational to say, go ahead.
