Matthew Garrett wrote: > Josh Triplett <josh.trip@verizon.net> wrote: >>Matthew Garrett wrote: >>>Copyleft is merely one facet of free software, but it's notable that it >>>/does/ restrict user's freedoms (the freedom to distribute without >>>source) in order to ensure that other users are free to receive source. >>>The QPL restricts the freedom to distribute amongst a subset of the >>>population in order to ensure that those modifications can be received >>>by all. >> >>http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html > > Which links to a page that says "It is also acceptable for the license > to require that, if you have distributed a modified version and a > previous developer asks for a copy of it, you must send one." Yes, I know. I don't agree with all views of the FSF. I do agree with the essay I linked to. The FSF's views on requirements to send modifications upstream are very unclear and inconsistently expressed. On the one hand, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html says that such requirements are acceptable. On the other hand, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/historical-apsl.html condemns such requirements. I have also read that RMS specifically removed such a requirement when creating the GPL from the original GNU Emacs license, due to concerns about the privacy of other developers. >>>No, since undistributed modification is protected by fair use in many >>>places. Attempting to restrict something that's commonly legal would be >>>outside the bounds of a free license. >> >>"We can't restrict that anyway" doesn't really explain _why_ we choose >>to allow modifications private to one person, but not modifications >>private to two people. "It's the law" is an appeal to authority, and >>not a particularly good authority even. (<cough>DMCA</cough>) > > 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 the other hand, > is something that is of interest to the original developer. When > multiple people are involved, there's a belief that they should both > consent to what's going on. Not sure I understand the last sentence; when multiple people are involved, *those people* would all consent to what's going on. - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature