On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 05:54:13PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> > If you want that formulated as a "principle", as though that makes it
> > somehow better, I've already said:
> > ] Sending your tax return, or your latest entries
> > ] in your diary, or whatever, to someone random and sending your changes
> > ] to some program to its author aren't comparable. One's never sensible
> > ] or reasonable, the latter's a good thing that we'd want to encourage
> > ] independent of whether it's required by the license.
> > Which is to say: sending your tax return to someone when you change a
> > program is not a reasonable thing to do. As such, it's not a reasonable
> > thing for a license to require you to do.
> Of course, now I need to understand why you think the
> forced-disclosure requirement is reasonable and the tax-return one
> isn't.
No, I think sending your tax return to the author of some program you
modify is mind-bogglingly stupid, whereas sending the changes you make
to the author of the program you're changing is sensible and constructive.
I think it's unreasonable to require you to do something mind-bogglingly
stupid.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations --
you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
Attachment:
pgpgbwQp7ZlEI.pgp
Description: PGP signature