On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 05:54:13PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Anthony Towns <email@example.com> writes: > > If you want that formulated as a "principle", as though that makes it > > somehow better, I've already said: > > ] Sending your tax return, or your latest entries > > ] in your diary, or whatever, to someone random and sending your changes > > ] to some program to its author aren't comparable. One's never sensible > > ] or reasonable, the latter's a good thing that we'd want to encourage > > ] independent of whether it's required by the license. > > Which is to say: sending your tax return to someone when you change a > > program is not a reasonable thing to do. As such, it's not a reasonable > > thing for a license to require you to do. > Of course, now I need to understand why you think the > forced-disclosure requirement is reasonable and the tax-return one > isn't. No, I think sending your tax return to the author of some program you modify is mind-bogglingly stupid, whereas sending the changes you make to the author of the program you're changing is sensible and constructive. I think it's unreasonable to require you to do something mind-bogglingly stupid. 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