Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Brian Thomas Sniffen writes: > >> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> Why is granting of extra freedoms non-free? >> >> >> >> It isn't. The part of my message that you snipped made clear that >> >> it's the requirement that I must grant extra permissions which is >> >> non-free. >> > >> > What is the difference between granting of extra permissions and >> > granting of extra freedoms? >> >> Nothing. Therefore, I require you to grant me a permissive license to >> all code you have ever written. >> >> Oh wait, that doesn't seem free to you? Why? Because it's a >> requirement. What's the difference between charity and tax? Tax is a >> requirement, charity is freely given. > > Although certain varieties of logical fallacy[1] are popular on this > list, please try to engage less in hyperbole and more in arguments > that believably relate to software. Ideally arguments will clearly > relate to actual licenses on software under discussion.
Look, Matthew's been repeatedly failing to recognize the difference between a grant of permission and a requirement for a grant of permission. I'm trying to make the difference as clear as possible, and to emphasize why the requirement is non-Free. While it's true that arguments will ideally refer to actual licenses on software under discussion, sometimes it's easiest to see a feature, whether problem or virtue, when it's shown in clear relief. For example, a license which was essentially "GPL, but replace the phrase "this License" in GPL 2b with "the MIT/X11 license"" would be non-Free for violating DFSG 3. The QPL's 3b is a close relative of that non-Free license. By imagining that strange copy-not-quite-left, I can clearly demonstrate the problem with the QPL. Ideally, arguments will also relate to the messages to which they purport to respond, not slight variations of those messages which omit a few words. -Brian > Michael Poole > > [1]- Fallacies like strawmen arguments, illustrated in your post, are > members of a group colloquially known as Making Shit Up. -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
