Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What alternative do you offer to ensure that attribution occurs? > None. There is no alternative actually.
Exactly: we offer no alternative. This is not a disagreement about which method of ensuring attribution is correct and acceptable, but a disagreement about whether or not it is appropriate to force attribution according to some particular standard. It is entirely within your rights as copyright holder to push whatever social agenda you wish with your software license -- but debian-legal's position is that that will make the license non-free. If you wish to require that it not be used in nuclear facilities, fine: non-free. If you require that people who use the software spend a moment to think about the plight of the homeless, fine: non-free. Just as, when you require attribution in a particular format and with a particular text, that's fine, but non-free. Though it may not be obvious given the rhetoric surrounding the issue, this is at its heart about pragmatism and compromise. In a free society we allow others freedoms that we sincerely hope they will not avail themselves of. But we allow it, because people disagree, and disagreement is (or can be, at least) good and productive. We prefer to use arguments rather than force (whether legal or physical) to get our points across, because in doing so we improve everyones understanding of the issues (including our own). If we disagree on the above paragraph, we disagree on fundamental principles. If, however, you agree there (though perhaps not with the rest) please explain where you think the disagreement shows up, because we may be able to make sense of things. -- Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
