[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: discussion with the FSF: GPLv3, GFDL, Nexenta

On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 01:18:56AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 21:46:30 +0200 Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> [...]
> > If it isn't, then the GPL
> > is also non-free, by the very same rationale: the fact that you are
> > required to produce source when so asked if you do distribute binaries
> > from source under the GPL means that you are giving up a right ("the
> > right not to distribute any source") which you might otherwise have,
> > which could be considered to be a fee.
> This argument is flawed.

It is not.

> You're *not* giving up the right not to distribute any source, because
> you can always refrain from distributing the corresponding binaries and
> have no obligation to provide source.
> You're *not* giving up the right to distribute binaries without
> distributing the corresponding source, because, without a license, you
> would not have the right to distribute binaries in the first place (with
> or without source).
> By accepting the GPL, you instead gain the right to distribute binaries
> with source, and you simply do *not* gain the right to distribute
> binaries without source.

Similarly, by accepting the CDDL, you are not giving up the right to
choose a venue in case you get sued over the software; instead, you are
simply gaining the right to use, modify, and redistribute the software
under a given set of rules (which simply does not include "the right to
choose a court in which to settle disagreements"). That is what matters,
and that is what makes the software free.

Even if my argument would be flawed (which I don't think it is, but just
in case), that wouldn't even matter. What matters is that DFSG#1 talks
about "a royalty or other fee"--i.e. money--not "giving up rights"; and
any interpretation of the text that says it does talk about giving up
rights is incorrect to begin with.

Shaw's Principle:
	Build a system that even a fool can use, and only a fool will
	want to use it.

Reply to: