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

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

> > 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.

I am not a specialist, but in France, private use of a work cannot be
denied (as well as private copy, in some measure). Whether this applies
only to countries following "author rights" doctrine instead of
"copyrights", I let it to someone more knowledgeable in this field.

Of course, private means private (not the "familial group").

Reply to: