Re: OSD && DFSG - different purposes - constructive suggestion!
David Turner <email@example.com> writes:
> So, I think we have to go back to looking at which restrictions we
> allow. For instance, we allow the GPL's section 4, which prohibits
> certain people (on account of their past actions) from copying,
> modifying, or distributing GPL'd software. Why? One answer is that
> it's the only way the GPL can be reasonably enforced.
> In Jeremy Hankins's suggested possible future, some AGPL-like (but
> better drafted) license is the only way we can keep Free Software as
> Free Software. So, let's move to that thread.
Um, but this is a trick! Suppose I became convinced that I needed to
know the tax returns of the leaders of IBM; in that way I might be
able to exert pressure on them to release more of IBM's code as free
Then it might be that the only way to "keep Free Software" is to
require the disclosure of tax returns.
Indeed, the people who want to ban flag burning see flag burning as
such a threat to the Republic, that they say the only way to to keep
free speech is to ban flag burning. Ludicrous!
Section 4 has never been invoked (though it has been threatened), but
more to the point, it acts almost entirely to allow a court to give
*injunctive* relief for future acts.
Jeremy Hankins hasn't explained well enough for me why in that future
we would be unable to make the kinds of free software we have now.