Matthew Garrett wrote: > Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>* The GPL's copyleft hinders people who want to write GPL-incompatible >>software based on the GPLed software. In the vast majority of cases, >>this consists of people who want to write proprietary software. > > The GPL makes it illegal for me to provide copies of GPLed source to > others in hostile patent environments. That's certainly hurting people > we want to care about.
In that circumstance, *patents* are hurting people, not the GPL. Obviously, the details depend on what restrictions the patent holder imposes, but you most likely will not be able to provide copies of MIT-licensed software in the same circumstance, at least not under the MIT license. (Yes, you could obviously come up with a strange patent license that only says "no GPL distribution". Again, that's a restriction from the patent holder, and we can't do anything about it, except stop distribution if it happens.) >>* The QPL hinders people who want to write software that is not >>publically distributed, even if that software is Free Software. > > I'm still not sold on why a requirement to provide source back upstream > is a significant hinderence. The only people it hurts are people who > don't want to share with the rest of the community. That argument can be applied many ways: "The only people mandatory key escrow hurts are those who don't want to share their private email messages with the rest of the community." You have to draw the privacy line somewhere. Consider also the case of a script that says "Edit the variables at the top to customize for your site." (or any program who's configuration file is covered under the same license as the rest of the software). Should I be required to provide the changes that involve adding a username and password to the script or config file? If you start allowing licenses that prohibit private modifications, you would need to consider such cases. I do agree that it is a tradeoff: in exchange for everyone's privacy, we give up the right to demand everyone's private modifications (minus those who choose not to use the software at all because of this requirement). However, I don't think this would be even close to a fair trade. >>To me, being required *to* distribute the software seems as bad as being >>required *not to* distribute the software. > > Sigh. Yes. People keep saying that. Repeatedly. And then saying it > again. But nobody actually seems willing to say why. The set of people > being hurt is not obviously less deserving of that pain than people who > are hurt by clause 7 of the GPL. My apologies; I am not attempting to simply assert unfounded statements. I am attempting to explain *why* I believe privacy to be so fundamental. At the end of the day, Free Software is about granting freedom to the users of that software. A copyleft requirement helps preserve those user's freedoms. A requirement to send source upstream does not further the goal of preserving those user's freedoms in any way; instead, it infringes on that freedom in order to further the author's goal of advancing their own software. This is not to say that the author's goal is unreasonable, only that the particular means of doing so would be. Would you argue that a requirement to send modifications upstream that are not distributed at all would be Free? If not, then why should that change if you distribute the software privately to one other person? - Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
