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

Re: Standard non-copyleft free license?



On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> I don't think we really need to worry about whether a license
>> promotes freedom; we should worry whether a license restricts that
>> freedom or not.
> 
> I disagree.  Our Social Contract says that our priorities are our
> users and Free Software.  This means that we expect ourselves to be
> advocates of and defenders of these priorities.

I agree that we should be promoting freedom. However, I don't think
that our licenses need to promote freedom, so long as they don't
restrict it. That is, I don't think I'll ever see the day where we
decide not to package BSD or X licensed software merely because it
fails to promote freedom. [If that indeed was the point you were
driving at... perhaps I've misunderstood what you were getting at when
you used "promote".]

> The job of a copyright license is to *grant permissions*. 

And often to restrict them, as is the case in the GPL (linking, etc.),
and many "no warranty" clauses.


Don Armstrong

-- 
"I was thinking seven figures," he said, "but I would have taken a
hundred grand. I'm not a greedy person." [All for a moldy bottle of
tropicana.]
 -- Sammi Hadzovic [in Andy Newman's 2003/02/14 NYT article.]
 http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/14/nyregion/14EYEB.html

http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://www.anylevel.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Attachment: pgptlGLXzOvQA.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: