Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 09:42:49AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > Right, which indicates that we have nothing in principle against minor >> > technical awkwardnesses. If DFSG 4 didn't explicitly allow patch >> > clauses, somebody might read it as forbidding them. On the other hand, >> > their awkwardness is recognised - we encourage people not to use >> > licenses that require this sort of workaround. >> >> On the contrary, we do have something in principle against technical >> awkwardness -- but compromised those principles to accept patch >> clauses. > > Why did we do that?
That's complicated. My impression is that it was in the hope of djb compromising and freeing QMail, but that didn't happen. >> > Of course distribution is of interest to the original developer. The >> > original recipient (who I provided the software to) is making a copy of >> > something that I put effort into without necessarily giving me anything >> > in return. >> >> And if he has a Free license, then he can do that without the initial >> developer's interference. > > Your arguments are distressingly circular. You asked me why private > modification could be held to different standards when compared to > distributed modification. I told you. You asserted that they were different. How is modification less of interest to the initial developer than distributed modification? I can replace "making a copy" with "changing a copy" in your text above and it makes just as much sense. > One is outside the developer's field of interest. One > isn't. Replying to that by saying "But a free license means that it > isn't of interest to the original developer" doesn't actually say > anything useful. Sure it does. It says that the initial author's copyright gives him control of modification and distribution. A free license sacrifices much of that control. In particular, it is Free because it allows others to do what the developer could, and without further permission from the developer. >> > In what way does it serve free software to allow people to hoard >> > modifications rather than allow the community to take advantage of them? >> >> Perhaps you weren't paying attention: a restriction on the ways in >> which a recipient may manipulate a work is Free iff it advances free >> software. The converse is not true -- that is, it is not necessary to >> show that Free Software is served by either decision, just those that >> on their face restrict freedom. If we adopt the rule you suggest, >> we'd never me able to make any decisions but very very clear ones. > > Being forced to provide your modifications to everyone advances free > software. How could it not do? It means that more free software is > available. That kind of generality is suspicious. Whose freedom is advanced? What disincentives to development are provided? With the GPL, I can point at the recipient and say that he has a guarantee of Freedom with respect to that software. With a general publication requirement, whose freedom is increased? >> In any case, allowing people to decide with whom they associate is a >> central component of freedom. A license that compels me to interact >> with the initial author is, thus, non-free. > > You're arguing by assertion again. You're just saying that. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
