Re: The Show So Far
Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > You have articulated a difference between "cannot" and "don't want
> > to", but as I think I showed, that difference doesn't bear up in this
> > case.
> You haven't made any arguments that don't apply equally well to the GPL
> as compared to the BSD.
Yes I have, but since they seem to have been lost, I'll repeat them.
The GPL's source distribution requirement actually augments the
freedom of the possessor of the code; the point being that a free
license *must* permit modification, but distribution as binary-only is
a subterfuge to avoid actually permitting modification. Accordingly,
the GPL requires that you distribute in the *form* that allows
The other conditions on the GPL (the requirement to log changes, the
no-warranty disclaimer for interactive programs) *are* inhibitions on
freedom, but they don't make in non-free precisely because complying
with them isn't a real pain for anyone.
The source-distribution requirement *is* a real pain for some people,
but since it isn't an imposition on freedom, there is no problem.
In otherwords, impositions on freedom are allowed if and only if they
are not a genuine pain for anyone. Things which actually directly
*augment* the freedom to change and distribute tho code, are allowed
in a free license whether or not they are a genuine pain.