On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 05:51:17PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote: > Glenn, don't you think he's talking about technologically impractical. We > all > know how easy it is to circumvent click wrap licenses. But you HAVE to agree > to the GPL to download the software, click wrap or not, so its not really > impractical from a freedom sense.
Technically impractical *is* non-free. Marco believes, as far as I understand (from past messages), that a license requiring technically mpractical things as conditions for basic freedoms is free. A "you must send 250 redundant copies of the source along with binaries, to make sure that the recipient gets at least one intact" is technically impractical; a Linux distribution with two discs of source would have to ship five hundred. I hope such a restriction is clearly non-free. (I find it mind-boggling that anyone would even suggest that requiring a click-wrap is free, and I'm close to throwing my hands in the air in frustration and doing something less maddening for a while, since I feel that suggesting that a "you must be eaten by a lion to be allowed to distribute this software" license is non-free would meet disagreement.) -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
