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

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

>>Lack of forced distribution is not "censorship".  Get a clue, or a
>        Heh.
>        "Why that ugly, non-free GPL license demand from me to
>distribute source code? Source would still be freely available from
>the FSF website! Lack of forced distribution do not harm a
>freedom!"       Agree?

Now you've changed the terms of your argument; I guess you admit that it's 
not 'censorship'.  Good.  :-)

In response to your new, different argument:

When I distribute GPL'ed binaries, I do not in fact have to distribute source 
with them.  I could also distribute, for instance:
* a written offer to provide source
* a copy of the written offer to provide source which I received

But more importantly, if I make a *modified version* of a GPL'ed program, I 
only have to distribute source to my *modified version*.  I do *not* have to 
distribute the source code to the FSF's version of GCC when I distribute my 
hacked-up version!

If I make a *modified version* of a GFDL'ed manual, no matter how 
dramatically altered, I still have to distribute the *original* Invariant 

The situations are not similar.

I will not reply to any further nonsense on your part.  If you have something 
sensible and rational to say, go ahead.

Reply to: