Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 06:28:32PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> What is the practical outcome of this distinction? In both cases, a user >> may discover that they no longer have the right to distribute the >> software. Why do we consider one of these cases problematic and the >> other acceptable? The user is equally screwed either way. > >I tend to distinguish between being screwed by the person who distributed >the software to you in the first place (including the original author, if >one includes indirect distribution), and being screwed by some third party.
Yeah, but the actual harm done is the same in both cases. While I can certainly see that there /is/ a difference, I'm still unclear on why we think it's enough of a difference to influence freedom. >In other words, there is a difference between being screwed by people >within the Free Software community, and people outside it. > >It is occasionally useful to be able to distinguish good neighbors from bad >ones. If an upstream author has previously used license termination clauses, then I certainly wouldn't suggest that we should consider his software free. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
