Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> In any case, a more direct answer is that your original question about >> the difference between grants of permissions and freedoms is >> irrelevant. I was and am talking about the difference between a grant >> of extra permissions and a compelled grant of extra permissions, and >> objecting to the compulsion as non-free. > > No, I really am lost here. Is your argument: > > a) compulsion of provision of freedoms (as in the GPL, for instance) is > non-free, or > > b) compulsion of provision one set of freedoms to some people and a > different set to others is non-free
Neither. Or at least, a particular subset of b. Let's see if I can put it all into one phrase: c) compulsion of provision of permissions in excess of minimal freedom which were not possessed by the modifier is non-free. Yeesh, that's more complex than I'd like. But that's because it's trying to scope the non-freedom as tightly as possible. So the GPL's requirement that I provide source when distributing, even if I don't have the source, is not non-free -- providing the source is part of giving minimal freedom to the recipient. And I had the source, or an opportunity to get it, anyway. But a requirement that I provide permissions over-and-above the freedoms I had is non-free. > If the first is free, I have difficulty in seeing how the second is > non-free (providing, of course, that either set of freedoms in option b > would be free on its own) The critical difference is whether I had the permissions or not. I see that distinction very clearly in DFSG 3: I must be able to distribute modifications under the same license I received. If I *have* to relax certain conditions, then I can't do so. For example, I think it would be just fine (in terms of DFSG 3) for the QPL to require a permissive grant like that if it also gave one to modifiers. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
