Re: OSD && DFSG - different purposes - constructive suggestion!
Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Yes, it does: it's quite possible to write code in such a way that when
> compiled, it's near impossible to work out exactly what's going. There's
> a whole swath of research on obfuscation. The GPL says "well, sure,
> go ahead, but you have to include the source code anyway, so you're not
> going to succeed at hiding anything".
> It certainly does force you to share your secrets. It forces you to share
> your secrets only with your customers, though.
No. It forces you to share *with the person who gets the program*.
That's it, and the point is to preserve *THAT* person's right to
modify the program which they have.
> That's great, Thomas, but you're missing the point. You can say
> "it's about privacy, it's about the freedom to keep things private,
> it's about not fundamental rights" 'til you're blue in the face, and
> even though every word of it's completely true, it's *not relevant*. We
> don't guarantee every freedom we can, we guarantee the one's that are
> important and useful.
The point is that it is about *freedom*. You are saying that this
restriction is ok. Why then is not a restriction "this software
cannot be used by bigots" not OK? Why should we prohibit that
restriction in free software?
> No, but the GPL is about forcing people to pass the freedoms they have
> onto their users.
No, not to the users, but to the people who have the program. They
may be a different set from the users.
> Note that you do _not_ get to assume "privacy is good and moral and a
> right of both individuals and corporations". Justify it in other terms,
That's not the assumption. I'm not saying "privacy is good, so we
should make room for it". We should make room for bigots too, but
they aren't good.
I'm saying "privacy is an aspect of freedom, and so we should make
room for it."