Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Edmund Grimley-Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>I was thinking of a case where the software is being used in a >>secretive industry. For example, suppose I work for a semiconductor >>company with 500-100 employees. A lot of what we do is temporarily >>confidential, in that we don't want the rest of the world finding out >>what we are working on until there is an official announcement. We use >>free software. We even use ML in some projects, though I personally >>use Haskell. Sometimes we might want to distribute software that uses >>a free library to selected partners, with whom carefully drafted >>non-disclosure agreements have been signed. I can't imagine the legal >>department accepting anything like 6c. > > Why should free software support companies in not releasing their > knowledge to the world? Why do we consider the freedom to hoard > information an important one?
Because privacy is an inherent right of Debian's users. Further, communication with others, and sharing useful information and tools with them, should not have any impact on my privacy from you. Imagine a license which said that any changes, when distributed, should be sent to the US NSA for evaluation of possible terrorist intent. Is such a license free? We certainly don't want to support terrorists. But is it OK to have a license which hurts them and scares[1] everybody else? No, that's non-free. Similarly, a license which hurts actual hoarders while scaring[1] users is non-free. -Brian [1] By "scare" I mean that imposes a cost on them which can be reasonably claimed to be negligible, but which has the potential to grow unbearably large. -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
