Matthew Garrett wrote: > Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>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. > > Since it would be relatively trivial to modify the script to read those > in from external files, that's an awkwardness rather than a problem.
You should not need a technical workaround for a legal problem. >>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. > > Copyleft is merely one facet of free software, but it's notable that it > /does/ restrict user's freedoms (the freedom to distribute without > source) in order to ensure that other users are free to receive source. > The QPL restricts the freedom to distribute amongst a subset of the > population in order to ensure that those modifications can be received > by all. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html >>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? > > No, since undistributed modification is protected by fair use in many > places. Attempting to restrict something that's commonly legal would be > outside the bounds of a free license. "We can't restrict that anyway" doesn't really explain _why_ we choose to allow modifications private to one person, but not modifications private to two people. "It's the law" is an appeal to authority, and not a particularly good authority even. (<cough>DMCA</cough>) - Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
