fect and be
DFSG-free (grudgingly on our part, but I understand authors' concerns
here to some extent).
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
carry a great
deal of weight here unless we have some sort of legal support. All we
/really/ need is enough to create some doubt - at that point, people can
be encouraged to go and ask their lawyers again.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
gt;serious questions about why they're trying to use them at all. Raising
>artificial barriers to forking is a *bad* thing.
I think Sun has fairly obvious reasons for wanting to use its trademarks
in its software.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
encouraged to follow
> Trolltech's example, and dual-license their work under the GNU GPL or
> another clearly DFSG-free license.
I agree. Regardless of whether we consider the QPL free or not, it's
obviously less than ideal.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
s to linked works by treating the result as a combined
>work", and DFSG#3 also applies. (Taken at face value, it's also license
>contamination, DFSG#9.)
With the exception of the desert island and dissident scenarios, are
there any cases where the effects of QPL 6 are worse than those of the
GPL's requirements?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
f the items are not available to the general public, and the
initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items, then you
must supply one.
So if the developer is just doing it for himself, then the clause
doesn't apply.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ns. My personal feeling is that no
actual harm is likely to be generated by this clause. A requirement to
publish your code on distribution would be more onerous and arguably
more dangerous, but that's not what we have here.
2) It requires that any lawsuits be settled in Oslo, rather than
locally. I have no strong feelings on this clause at present.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
>Matthew Garrett said on Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 11:02:34AM +0100,:
> > Nathaneal Nerode wrote:
> > >If the user is really doing stuff privately -- just for himself! -- and
> > >happens to talk about it, he certainly shouldn't be forced to dist
nt becomes actively enforced having
been previously docile.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
rpret it how we want. I'm certainly
strongly inclined to believe that "fee" in DFSG 1 is referring to money.
If there's any evidence that it was framed to the contrary, I'd be
fascinated.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
, a user
may discover that they no longer have the right to distribute the
software. Why do we consider one of these cases problematic and the
other acceptable? The user is equally screwed either way.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I think you would find it hard to gain consensus that "fee" should be
>> interpreted in this manner. The GPL requires that I provide either all
>> the source code, a written offer or alter
Glenn Maynard wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 10:59:14AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> I'm not sure I buy this. Surely the GPL #7 effectively restricts the
>> scope of derived works I can make and distribute to those that don't
>> infringe upon actively enfo
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> What if I only wish to distribute binaries? The requirement that I
>> distribute source alongside them is a fee. It's not necessarily one that
>> applies to Debian, but it's one that
Josh Triplet wrote:
>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> What is the practical outcome of this distinction? In both cases, a user
>> may discover that they no longer have the right to distribute the
>> software. Why do we consider one of these cases problematic and the
>> ot
MJ Ray wrote:
>On 2004-07-12 17:29:17 +0100 Matthew Garrett
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> MJ Ray wrote:
>>> http://perens.com/Articles/Termination.html
>> Surely GPL 7 causes the same problem (admittedly under a different set
>> of circumstances)?
&
PL requires that he either pass on the source or pass
on a written offer. What if he gives it to someone who then passes it on
to an informer? He'd have more plausible deniability if it had been
under a BSD license. The GPL restricts the fight against
(communism/capitalism/globalisation)*!
*delete as applicable based on personal prejudice
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Raul Miller wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 11:13:21AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> ...again the practical outcome to our users is the same - they suddenly
>> discover that they have no right to distribute the software they have.
>> Why do we wish to ensure that they have
MJ Ray wrote:
>On 2004-07-13 11:14:45 +0100 Matthew Garrett
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Enforcement (or lack thereof) of a patent is arbitrary, yes.
>
>Needing a DFSG-free patent licence is not news to me. If we have a
>patented software, then it's non-free wit
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 14:31, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > But compare it to the BSD license. I can provide BSD-licensed binaries
> > without the requirement to provide source. Compared to that, the GPL
> > imposes a
e should allow privacy of a group.
I'm also unconvinced by these examples. The first sounds like "A free
software license should allow for small groups to avoid lawsuits while
breaking the law", and the GPL can damage a wide range of perfectly
legal business plans.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ck of this hurts certain people, but many license provisions
that we're entirely happy with hurt other people.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
against mp3 encoders, but little or
none against decoders.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
actively enforced, and there's no
good reason to suspect that it will be in future, we should accept it as
free.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Any situation which inhibits your ability to carry out any of the GPL's
>> requirements results in you no longer being able to distribute the code.
>> I still don't see how this is any less of
le of a group that
>everyone agrees is deserving of privacy then perhaps it's best to just
>leave it as an abstract requirement.
I'd agree.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
27;s a guideline. There should either be a clear argument that
the right to keep modifications private is enshrined in the DFSG as
stands, or alternatively we should go through the necessary procedure to
change the DFSG.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
not something anybody should be proud of or enjoy doing, but it's the
> only way to have *any* software right now.
Sigh. Yes. But the difference between the two makes no practical
difference whatsoever to our users at present, so what's the point?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> But the QPL also fails the dissident test, and has a much less onerous
>> requirement than the "Add your name to a wiki" license.
>
>It's a much more o
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 19:18, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Right. That's the sort of conclusion I'm coming to. If it /is/ actually
> > effectively another criterion, then the right way to go about it is by
> >
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Sigh. Yes. But the difference between the two makes no practical
>> difference whatsoever to our users at present, so what's the point?
>
>It makes a huge differe
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 12:23:35PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Any situation which inhibits your ability to carry out any of the GPL's
>> requirements results in you no longer being able to distribute the code.
>> I
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 11:32:01AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> protected. In the past, we have compromised in order to be able to
>> distribute software that we thought was "free enough" - DFSG 4 is a good
>> ex
of places
where writing subversive software may result in bad things happening.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 2004-07-13 19:33:47 +0100 Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> [...] your funny "fee" one, and I don't think that's
>> going to fly with a wider audience.
>
>Funny to us possibly, but did anyon
it harder to be a political
dissident than the BSD license does. Why have we drawn the line there
rather than in a place that would also exclude the GPL?
(I'm going to be fantastically unconvinced by "We drew it there because
we can't allow the GPL to become non-free")
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 06:36:29PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> But the QPL also fails the dissident test, and has a much less onerous
>> requirement than the "Add your name to a wiki" license.
>
>It has an &quo
freedoms we
guarantee elsewhere.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Why is it necessary for a free software license to support certain
>> business models, especially when (say) the GPL prevents certain other
>> business models?
>
>The restriction in the GPL prevent
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 09:17:51PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> I'm arguing that I don't believe them to be obviously non-DFSG-free,
>> which is not the same thing.
>
>It seems so obvious and self-evident to me th
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 06:28:32PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> What is the practical outcome of this distinction? In both cases, a user
>> may discover that they no longer have the right to distribute the
>> software
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> The GPL makes it illegal for me to provide copies of GPLed source to
>> others in hostile patent environments. That's certainly hurting people
>> we want to care about.
>
>In that circumsta
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 11:05:17PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> So why is "You must give the source to the recipient of the binaries"
>> not equally objectionable from this point of view?
>
>It's a restr
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Ok. Why do we consider this worse than the GPL's requirement that source
>> be distributed with binaries? A pragmatic disident isn't going to hand
>> out source to people that he wants to ru
David Schleef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 11:48:10PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> The restriction in the GPL takes away *my* "right" to not have to share
>> modifications; the restriction in the QPL prevents me taking away the
>> rig
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 2004-07-13 23:05:17 +0100 Matthew Garrett
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> As I said elsewhere, I'm unconvinced by that. At any point you can
>> avoid
>> this by releasing the code to the general public. [...]
>
&g
re in order to
>maintain its monopoly and extend its evil empire. The license cannot
>allow even the author to take away the required freedoms!"
Yes. Why does the test say this? Which aspect of the DFSG is represented
by this test?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 04:58:50PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> We shouldn't be worried about freedom from a philosophical masturbation
>> perspective.
>
>I think there should be a corollary to Godwin's Law th
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 12:23:35PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Any situation which inhibits your ability to carry out any of the GPL's
>> requirements results in you no longer being able to distribute the code.
>> I
own to you misreading the old
one. I'm certainly not clear that the new SC gives any leeway to use
tests that don't spring directly from the DFSG.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 11:54:03AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Termination due to non-compliance is one thing.
>> >
>> >Termination due to the cop
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 11:04:54AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The only way that this could realistically be defined as a "fee" is in a
> > narrow legal sense. But the DFSG is not written to be read in a narrow
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:03:40PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Why not? Again, what practical difference does it make to our users?
>
> Right now, not much -- but it makes it harder for us to mistake
> non-free lice
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 11:59:53AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Shipping non-modifiable sofware would clearly be in breach of the DFSG
> > and would be an obvious reduction in the amount of functionality we
> > p
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Since it would be relatively trivial to modify the script to read those
>> in from external files, that's an awkwardness rather than a problem.
>
>You should not need a technical workaround for a l
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Until that's done, there's no intrinsic reason for
>> debian-legal's idea about the location of the line to be better than
>> anyone else's opinion.
>
>We've th
ing along the lines of "If it just said
'The license must not compel publication of modifications to anyone that
does not receive binaries' then it would sound more like a guideline
than a test and so would need to go through a GR to modify the DFSG",
but...
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> But the QPL doesn't require that any changes include your name. It's
>> possible to provide those modifications to the general public without
>> being
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 03:12:25PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>You should not need a technical workaround for a legal problem.
> >
> > We accept this as
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> At which point it becomes non-free. Or is it your belief that it should
>> never be possible to turn a free license into a non-free one? The GPL
>> contains a clause t
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>> ...again the practical outcome to our users is the same - they suddenly
>> discover that they have no right to distribute the software they have.
>> Why do we wish to ensure that they have a
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> There's a strong feeling that people should be allowed to do what they
>> want if it doesn't involve other people. Private undistributed
>> modification falls within this. Distribution, on th
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>> The restriction in the GPL takes away *my* "right" to not have to share
>> modifications;
>Actually, it doesn't, but you know that.
The context is entirely related to distribution.
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The problem is that it's not clear what the dissident test was made for.
>
>I think one purpose is to clarify the kinds of uses that DFSG #6
>covers. If you can't even u
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 02:01:55AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Right, which indicates that we have nothing in principle against minor
>> technical awkwardnesses.
>
>Patch clauses are not a "minor technical awkwardnes
l-licensed under the MPL/NPL, and so deciding that the MPL is
non-free certainly means that we can't ship Mozilla.
http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/relicensing-faq.html certainly implies that
some work remains to be done there.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> At the point where the termination clause is used, the software is
>> obviously non-free. I'd argue that this is directly analagous to the way
>> we deal with patents. Almost all software we
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >(If you pointed me to an evidently valid patent which is being infringed, I
>> >would say "Get that program out!")
>
>On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 11:34:02AM +01
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 07:52:14PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> The dissident test only makes any sense at all because it suggests that
>> certain license provisions will result in bad things happening to the
>> dissident
receive a copy of the binary -- is non
>free.
Why does it not say this, rather than rambling about dissidents?
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> So why is "You must give the source to the recipient of the binaries"
>> not equally objectionable from this point of view?
>
>That is simply a restriction on the allowed forms of dist
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> So we declare it non-free despite the fact that it makes no difference
>> to our users? Does this not sound a little ridiculous?
>
>I just explained to you how it m
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 03:20:00PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I entirely fail to understand the difference here.
>
> It's that one is to the recipient, and the other is to recipient and
> upstream.
Why does t
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 2004-07-15 02:01:55 +0100 Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> Of course distribution is of interest to the original developer. The
>> original
>> recipient (who I provided the software to) is making a copy of
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 2004-07-15 11:16:00 +0100 Matthew Garrett
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> We believe in the right of the recipient to receive source.
>>
>> We don't believe in the right of the copyright holder to see all
>> dist
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 09:42:49AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Right, which indicates that we have nothing in principle against minor
> > technical awkwardnesses. If DFSG 4 didn't explicitly allow patch
> >
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Surely it's not the license that restricts the activities of the
>> dissident, it's the local authorities? If my government decrees that
>> anyone producing work
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You could look at it that way. On the other hand, if I release my
>> GPLed code under 3(b) then anyone who receives it can pass on the offer
>> I gave them (under 3(c))
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> You could look at it that way. On the other hand, if I release my
>> GPLed code under 3(b) then anyone who receives it can pass on the offer
>> I gave them (under 3(c)). I am then obliged to pass on m
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>If those were the only options, it was the loose consensus that that would
>>>not be free.
>>
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 11:20:14AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> So why are they free? "Because DFSG #4 says so" is answering an entirely
>> different question.
>
>My opinion is that they are not, and DFSG#4 is
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 08:23:02PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Really? Wow. That's insane.
>
>Could you please explain "that's insane"? It seems simple and noncontroversial
>that a free license can be non
promise to give a kitten to every recipient,
the fact that you don't have to provide it to the licensor wouldn't stop
us from considering it a fee.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If there were, would we consider the GPL non-free?
>
>It certainly wouldn't be free in that jurisdiction. Whether Debian
>decides to care about such jurisdicitions is, to so
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> It's a pain in the ass, but why should having responsibilities
>> attached to your use of freedoms be non-free?
>
>It depends on what the responsibility is.
Right. So the
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But the dissident test would only be an issue in jurisdictions with
>> hostile governments.
>
>Which happens to be all jurisdictions. Some of them don't shoot you,
>ju
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> In the case of forced distribution of code back upstream, it results
>> in a wider range of people being able to take advantages of your
>> modifications.
>
>So wou
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 10:24:12AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Because, to me, freedom is defined by the ability to do things. It being
>> difficult to do that thing does not restrict my freedom, it merely makes
>> it harder
instead of a set of
>guidelines.
I see no way that forced distribution of code to upstream is a subject
that springs directly from DFSG 1. If you disagree, then I'd suggest
that DFSG 1 is modified in order to make it clearer.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 2004-07-19 at 15:51, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The GPL makes it harder to assert freedom because you need to spend more
> > time investigating subtle license interactions.
>
> Easily shown to be false -- if
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 2004-07-19 11:38:23 +0100 Matthew Garrett
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The GPL discriminates against people on
>> desert islands who have a binary CD but not a source one.
>
>I must have missed that one. How?
Because th
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:49:35PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Because they can't give any of the contents to their washed-up
> > companion.
>
> That person has either deleted his copies of the source or fail
On Mon, 2004-07-19 at 18:47, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > What? That doesn't follow at all. Even ignoring that, you're still
> > wrong. You have no guarantee that upstream hasn't done something that is
ork with the FLOSS community is your right to act as a tyrant, yanking
>people's licenses away from them in a fit of pique.
I think I'm inclined to buy this argument, though I'm unconvinced that
it actually makes any significant amount of difference to any users in
the current cl
K is one of them. Maybe I should make more use of my Irish
citizenship.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
result in our users to fall foul of situations just like these.
Really that's a user education problem. People should be told what the
risks are ("This software may contain patents that you do not hold a
license to", for instance) and spend some time thinking about them
before exercising any of the freedoms we provide.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ellence is a program that requires me to post a signed
agreement to Brazil before I can even download the damn thing.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
between us and RMS (though
I guess there's an argument that bad blood between us and RMS isn't a
bad thing, and it certainly gives us more credibility in certain
quarters :) )
>(Hah, and I'll bet you thought I was using "evolve" as a transitive verb in
>my Subject: line.
tical difference is small. I
guess the real question is "Should we be concerned about philosophical
freedomes or the practical outcomes of them?"
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 11:38:23AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> The GPL discriminates against a slightly smaller set of dissidents.=20
>
>Which set?
The ones who want to be able to give binaries to people when they don't
n
1 - 100 of 468 matches
Mail list logo
