On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 12:59:25PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:53:56PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > > Please go back and read the rest of this thread, since your arguments > > were previously made and countered. You argue that since choice of > > venue is a small (or putatively reasonable) cost or form of > > discrimination, it can be ignored; the DFSG do not allow that. > It's not a cost, it's a risk. There are plenty of other risks that we take > when we distribute software, that we consider acceptable. What makes this > one unacceptable? The fact that it's a risk *imposed explicitly by the license*. This is not a risk that's mitigated by cautious adherence to the license, and it is not a risk that's inherent in the exercise of rights that belong exclusively to the copyright holder; it's a risk that you are asked to accept in exchange for the right to exercise the four freedoms with respect to the work. I'm sure there are lots of people who are willing to accept this risk, and I'm even fairly confident that doing so is a win (at least with respect to copyright holders that are known quantities, like Sun or Apple). Still, I don't believe it's compatible with the principles of Free Software as expressed in the DFSG. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature