Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Matthew Garrett wrote: >> 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.
We accept this as free for patch clauses. >> 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 Which links to a page that says "It is also acceptable for the license to require that, if you have distributed a modified version and a previous developer asks for a copy of it, you must send one." >> 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>) There's a strong feeling that people should be allowed to do what they want if it doesn't involve other people. Private undistributed modification falls within this. Distribution, on the other hand, is something that is of interest to the original developer. When multiple people are involved, there's a belief that they should both consent to what's going on. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
