On Friday 09 September 2005 21:03, Matthew Garrett wrote: --cut-- > > That wouldn't make your argument more coherent. We're concerned > > exclusively with which rights the *user* gets. Whether the author > > thinks it is worth it to give the user those rights is not something > > we consider at all. We can just observe that sufficiently many > > software authors *have* been willing to do so that we can put together > > a good free OS. There is no reason to start including software in our > > OS where the user only gets freedoms with this kind of strings > > attached. > > Oh, bollocks. The social contract is with the free software community, > not just the users. Arguing that the rights of the user are the only > ones that matter suggests that the GPL ought to be non-free - it > restricts the rights of users in favour of the rights of developers. > In the vast majority of cases, choice of venue makes it more practical > for developers to justifiably enforce their licenses. The fact that it > has the potential to be used against users doesn't make it evil, any > more than the fact that decss can be used to facilitate DVD piracy makes > it evil.
The diff is that you can not use GPL in baseless lawsuits against users and/or developers. Can you ? Do you risk your baseless adventure will be severely striken back in any sane countries ? <Y/n> -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu> fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
