On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 04:56:37PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:28:41 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 07:26:55PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > > > I disagree with your calling "licensing in a DFSG-free manner" as > > > "giving up rights": this seems to imply that releasing DFSG-free > > > works is something wrong or inappropriate. > > Uh, licensing in a DFSG-free manner *is* giving up rights. > Of course it is. > Maybe I didn't explain myself clearly enough, my apologies. > What I meant is that using that description is suitable if you want to > depict licening in a DFSG-free manner as something wrong that people > should *avoid*. If the description is accurate, it's suitable at any time. > It resembles describing charity as "investment with no return". Perhaps; though there are differences. Charity does have returns: both emotionally/psychologically, and in helping people get up on their feet so they can trade with you / work for you / employ you in future. Charitable donations might have different tax considerations too. By contrast, BSD-like licenses do nothing but give up your rights. Copyleft licenses do something in between -- giving up your rights in the hope that others will give up there's in return. > Well, it's not an inaccurate description (I think), but you would use > such a definition only if you think that charity is a stupid thing to > do... So, if I'm parsing you right, you're saying that a person (such as myself) would only describe free software as giving up rights (such as I did) only if that person (me) thought that free software was a stupid thing to do? If that's not what you're trying to say, would you kindly look back over your argument, and retract the error? Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature