Re: A possible approach in "solving" the FDL problem
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 02:36:36 +0200, Sergey V Spiridonov
<sena@hurd.homeunix.org> said:
> Stephen Ryan wrote:
>> You have taken the one sacred cow in the entire place here, and
>> have suggested that it is merely a convenience, and that we should
>> have a barbecue next Friday afternoon. "Free enough" -- them's
>> fightin' words.
> I feel that GPL will be offered next in sacrifice to the sacred
> cow. Of course, GPL is not *absolutely* free!
Why is it so hard to see why a license to use a work is
treated differently? The license determines the terms I am offered
something, as opposed to what I am offered. The freedoms I care about
are my ability to use, modify, and share my modifications (or not, if
I do not publish the changes). I care about the freedom to tailor
the behaviour of the software, to port it to the zaurus, and to be
able to share my changes, and be able to document my changed program
when I share it.
All these freedoms of using and sharing software do not entail
that the terms I was given the software under be changed; and indeed,
the rights of users downstream rely on the terms of distribution not
being modified.
Though I fail to see the distinction between code, data, and
documentation; I see no such ambiguity when it comes to
distinguishing the license from any of those.
manoj
--
Lax behaviour, broken observances and dubious chastity - these are of
no great benefit. 312
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: