Re: The Show So Far
Jeremy Hankins <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> email@example.com (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> > Binary only distribution *inhibits* changes, and makes them *harder*,
> > without making them strictly impossible. The GPL says that the costs
> > of including source are trivial--an extra CD, and therefore requires
> > you to share them.
> It may be possible, but it certainly isn't practical.
Exactly my point.
> But even, for the sake of argument, granting your point that it is
> remotely possible, how does that change matters? You seem to be
> saying that if someone needs the source they shouldn't get it, where
> if someone doesn't *need* it but wants it really, really bad they
> should be able to get it.
No, I'm not saying that at all.
You said that my arguments against forced-publication clauses would be
the same ones that a BSD-license-only person would use against the
GPL. I've explained the difference: that the GPL's requirement makes
a possibility more practical, which was previously possible, but not
The forced-publication clauses, by contrast, take something which was
previously impossible, for reasons having nothing to do with copyright
law, and--hey, don't even make it possible, let alone practical, but
rather, make something *else* possible.