Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Does anyone actually have any compelling reason for believing that the > literal interpretation is what was meant?
I don't know what was meant, but I know what it should mean: imagine a work under a copyleft-like license, which insisted that all modifications and derived works had to be distributed under BSD-like licenses. It's sort of a copywrong, since the original author can collect all the modifications and sell proprietary licenses to them. Should this be considered free? I can't see it as free. It's very clear that recipients are being charged for the ability to modify the software. They aren't on a plane with the original author. This is a root problem similar to that of the FSF's shenanigans with GFDL and GPL'd text, and the reason I object to their use of the GFDL: when only a copyright holder can do some things, that's non-Free. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
