On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 06:08:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > The GPL's source distribution requirement actually augments the > freedom of the possessor of the code You say that like the "possessor" of the code is somehow special, but the user of the code, and the author of the code aren't. I don't find that remotely reasonable. > The source-distribution requirement *is* a real pain for some people, > but since it isn't an imposition on freedom, there is no problem. You keep saying that, but it _is_ an imposition on "freedom", and a very significant one. Just ask the folks who license their code under a BSDish license. I've already said both these things to you, I'm not sure why you're still saying the same old things instead of either accepting the difference of opinion or coming up with deeper analyses. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
Description: PGP signature