On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 05:39:40PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 10:53:28PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > Fred wants to use a popular free software package which almost does > > just the job: QNU Madlibs. But QNU Madlibs is distributed under the > > QPL. What the Fred would like to do is make a special version of QNU > > Madlibs for Joe, with the special details of Joe's contracts. [...] > > Unfortunately, he realises he can't. Thus he writes his own program from > scratch. Or else he adds a macro facility into QNU Madlibs, or customises > it so it'll accept contract texts from a data file rather than hardcoding > it and makes sure that he only needs to accompany it with the original > contract forms for it to be a useful program. Maybe he does the latter, > then contributes the changes back upstream so his programmers don't have > to keep supporting it, and can work on other projects. If he should have just used software with a different license instead[1], then perhaps we should be asking ourselves what is valuable about the licensing of the alternative. I am not sure there is anyway to reconcile the difference of opinion in this thread. Most people appear to be clinging to privacy as a right, and you don't. You don't perceive a "freedom" where other people do, and thus it is going to be impossible at a philosophical to justify a defense of that freedom via the DFSG. For me, _The Transparent Society_ might more closely resemble a dystopian novel than a utopian one. I acknowledge that your mileage may vary. ;-) (Maybe Debian needs a Fifth Freedom.) [1] or written his own, or written his patches more cleverly, etc. -- G. Branden Robinson | No math genius, eh? Then perhaps Debian GNU/Linux | you could explain to me where you branden@debian.org | got these... PENROSE TILES! http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Stephen R. Notley
Attachment:
pgpWv94525a9k.pgp
Description: PGP signature