Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 10:24:12AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:
> >On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 11:20:14AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> So why are they free? "Because DFSG #4 says so" is answering an entirely
> >> different question.
> >
> >My opinion is that they are not, and DFSG#4 is a bug. I know that I'm
> >not the only person who would like to see that exception removed, though
> >I'm not in a position to do anything about that.
> >
> >If you disagree, could you try to explain why you think it's acceptable
> >that a "free" license make it so extremely difficult to reuse code, and
> >to fork projects? (I suspect that if our opinions differ on this, we
> >may not be able to come to an agreement; but I'd like to try to understand
> >your opinion, at least.)
>
> Because, to me, freedom is defined by the ability to do things. It being
> difficult to do that thing does not restrict my freedom, it merely makes
> it harder to assert it. I still have it.
This seems to be an argument that even the most onerous technical
restrictions in licenses should be accepted, as long as some workaround
can be found--regardless of how much of a pain in the ass that workaround
might be. I don't accept that. A license that goes out of its way to
make freedoms hard to assert (possibly with the goal of preventing them
from actually being asserted) shouldn't be considered free.
Making freedom harder to assert is restricting freedom.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: