Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 01:01:29PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> Why is discrimination against people who want to sue you significantly >> different to discrimination against people who want to distribute >> binaries without source? Neither prevents or restricts use, modification >> or distribution of modified works. > > Distribution of binaries without source is intrinsically bad for free > software. Distributing source with binaries is not appreciably > difficult or limiting; this requirement is trivially accomplished > without any real cost.
Indeed. Effectively, we don't consider the requirement that source be provided a difficult one to satisfy. The outcome is that more people have source, and more people are happy. People who would like to combine GPLed code with their proprietary code and ship it without source lose out and have to spend more money on doing their own development instead, but that's not seen as a real problem. > Lawsuits are not intrinsically bad for free software. Prohibiting > lawsuits is significantly limiting and imposes real, significant > costs. It's fairly obvious that a requirement that you not sue the licensor doesn't impose any costs on you. It blocks various revenue streams, but so does the GPL. >> > You cannot use a license to enforce your political position. >>=20 >> Why is copyleft other than the use of copyright to enforce a political >> position (ie, that the source should always be available to people with >> binaries)? > > It's the use of copyright to enforce a technical goal. It is vaguely > similar to the political position of the FSF but does not actually > enforce it. I think it's difficult to read the preamble to the GPL and gain any impression other than that it's attempting to enforce a political position. > It is unarguably superior that source should always be available for a > free software project. You cannot say the same for prohibiting > lawsuits. I think it's fairly unarguable that a situation in which free software authors are less likely to be sued for patent infringement is a better situation than the alternative. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
