Re: The Show So Far
David Turner <email@example.com> writes:
> On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 20:34, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > David Turner <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > > > Why the GPL is free
> > > > -------------------
> > > >
> > > > But then why is the forced distribution of source ok which the GPL
> > > > requires? Because this actually augments the freedom of the recipient
> > > > of the code.
> > >
> > > Doesn't this depend on which "recipient" you're talking about? Note
> > > that sections (2)(b), (3), (6), and (7) reduce the options of
> > > distributors, for the purpose of increasing the options of
> > > distributees.
> > I'm talking about the *recipient of the code*. Was that somehow
> > unclear where I said "the recipient of the code"?
> Yes. See above.
I'm talking about the RECIPIENT OF THE CODE. If you don't RECEIVE THE
CODE, you are not the "recipient" I was speaking of. Geez, that's
really it. I don't know how many ways I can say it, but maybe if
you'd identify other candidate understandings of "recipient" such that
they are the "recipient of the code" and yet there are multiple
possible understandings, that would help.