Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > If the software is not free, regardless of the copyright license, >> > then the reason it's not free is not the copyright license. Thus, >> > this scenario has no bearing on the freeness of the license. >> >> I don't think that's true. Certainly, I see no reason it should be >> accepted as obviously true. > > Where, specifically, do you disagree? [Let's take it for granted that > if you disagree with an antecedent that you feel that the consequent > is illogical.] Something can be non-free for many reasons. If it is non-free regardless of the copyright license, and under a non-free copyright license, then it is nonsensical to speak of a single reason that it is non-free. I think I see what conclusion you'd like me to reach, though -- that a copyright license which is sometimes free and sometimes non-free, but only non-free in cases where the software in question is already non-free anyway, is a free license. Is that the basic idea? If so, I almost believe it. Almost, but not quite. By way of comparison, consider a GPL-like license which additionally prohibited private modification to include non-GPL-compatible works written by others -- that is, to prohibit making any thing you could not distribute under the GPL out of parts you have only under the GPL. That's non-free, and this is non-free for the same reason. >> >> > A writes some software, and GPLs it. B claims >> >> > that the software is patent restricted, and sues A. >> >> > B wins, and now only B can distribute the software >> >> > -- A can't [and no one else can] without buying a >> >> > license from B. >> >> > >> >> > You seem to be claiming that a license which prevents >> >> > this scenario is not good, and that the reason it's >> >> > not good is that it prevents this scenario. > >> >> It might be good. It isn't free. If it is free, >> >> why isn't the following free: >> >> >> >> : A writes some software, and GPLs it. B claims that >> >> : the software is on his hard drive, and sues A for >> >> : that drive. B wins, and now only B can distribute >> >> : the software -- A can't [and no one else can] >> >> : without getting a license from B. >> > >> > This scenario of yours has nothing to do with the freeness of the >> > license. >> >> It's just your patent scenario from above, rephrased to deal with >> physical property. > > That's not "my patent scenario", that's "my paraphrase of your patent > scenario". I'm claiming that the scenario is invalid, your rephrasing > of it didn't make it valid. What's invalid about that scenario? I understand that you object to the conclusions drawn from it, but now you claim that the hypothetical itself is invalid. What does this mean? -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
