> > I wasn't talking about "fault". On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 12:54:48AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > What on earth are you talking about then? > > Your agenda seems to be trying to demonstrate that the GPL is "not > free enough" because it prevents certain kinds of functional > modifications. I am retorting that it is not the GPL that prevents > things in the scenarios you are sketching.
The GPL is free enough. "Free enough" doesn't have to include functions which are proprietary by their very nature. > > But, I don't agree that the GPL allows all functional modifications. > > The GPL has nothing at all against the functional modification you > sketch. If you like, I can change the nature of the proprietary function so that it's even more facist. For example, I could tie the function itself closer to some licensing scheme. -- Raul
