On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 01:01:29PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> wrote: > > > This idea is a variation on "You may not use this software for > > military applications" and goes against DFSG#5/#6. They're both > > intrinsically non-free, no matter how laudable you may consider them > > to be. > > Why is discrimination against people who want to sue you significantly > different to discrimination against people who want to distribute > binaries without source? Neither prevents or restricts use, modification > or distribution of modified works. Distribution of binaries without source is intrinsically bad for free software. Distributing source with binaries is not appreciably difficult or limiting; this requirement is trivially accomplished without any real cost. Lawsuits are not intrinsically bad for free software. Prohibiting lawsuits is significantly limiting and imposes real, significant costs. > > You cannot use a license to enforce your political position. > > Why is copyleft other than the use of copyright to enforce a political > position (ie, that the source should always be available to people with > binaries)? It's the use of copyright to enforce a technical goal. It is vaguely similar to the political position of the FSF but does not actually enforce it. It is unarguably superior that source should always be available for a free software project. You cannot say the same for prohibiting lawsuits. In short, all the usual things that distinguish valid applications of DFSG#5/#6 from invalid ones (even if they are fiendishly difficult to understand). -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature