On 8 Mai, 22:05, Patrick Maupin <pmau...@gmail.com> wrote: > On May 8, 2:38 pm, Steven D'Aprano <st...@remove-this- > > > > No, you don't *owe* them anything, but this brings us back to Ben's > > original post. If you care about the freedoms of Cisco's customers as > > much as you care about the freedoms of Cisco, then that's a good reason > > to grant those customers the same rights as you granted Cisco. > > But I *do* grant them the same rights -- they can come to my site and > download my software!!!
Of course they can, but it doesn't mean that they can run that software on the Cisco equipment they've bought, nor does it mean that the original software can interoperate with the modified software, that the end-user can enhance the original software in a way that they prefer and have it work with the rest of the Cisco solution, or that the data produced by the Cisco solution can be understood by a user- enhanced version of the original solution or by other software that normally interoperates with the original software. People often argue that the GPL only cares about the software's freedom, not the recipient's freedom, which I find to be a laughable claim because if one wanted to point at something the GPL places higher than anything else, it would be the "four freedoms" preserved for each user's benefit. Really, copyleft licences are all about treating all recipients of the software and modified versions or extensions of the software in the same way: that someone receiving the software, in whatever state of enhancement, has all the same privileges that the individual or organisation providing the software to them enjoyed; those "four freedoms" should still apply to whatever software they received. That this is achieved by asking that everyone make the same commitment to end-user freedoms (or privileges), yet is seen as unreasonable or actually perceived as coercion by some, says a great deal about the perspective of those complaining about it. [...] > So, that gets back to my argument > about what I like to see in a package I use, and how I license things > according to what I would like see. For me, the golden rule dictates > that when I give a gift of software, I release it under a permissive > license. I realize that others see this differently. Yes, but what irritates a lot of people is when you see other people arguing that some other random person should license their own software permissively because it's "better" or "more free" when what they really mean is that "I could use it to make a proprietary product". [...] > To me, the clear implication of the blanket statement that you have to > use the GPL if you care at all about users is that anybody who doesn't > use the GPL is uncaring. Well, if you want the users to enjoy those "four freedoms" then you should use a copyleft licence. If you choose a permissive licence then it more or less means that you don't care about (or have no particular position on the matter of) the users being able to enjoy those privileges. I believe you coined the term "uncaring", but I think Mr Finney's statement stands up to scrutiny. Paul -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
