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

Re: A possible GFDL compromise



On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 02:56:59PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> 
> >On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 03:28:28PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
> >> 	No. Freedom of _distributor_ is not an issue for the free
> >> software _at_ _all_. No written document says that goal of a free
> >> software is to promote freedom of a mere distributors (besides, of
> >> course, the freedom to distribute itself). Free software is about
> >> the freedom of _users_ and _authors_.
> 
> >What are you blabbering about? In many jurisdictions, the _only_
> >people who can be restricted _at all_ by copyright law are the
> >distributors. The word "copy" in "copyright" is there for a reason.
> 
> 	Yes, of course. And while copyright _really_, not formally,
> affects only professional distributors, there was little or no
> problem with copyright. Problems begins, when copyright grow so
> large, that it affect the rights and interests of users and authors.

Copyright has nothing to do with the unrestricted freedom that users
and authors intrinsically have (because it's not restricted by, for
example, copyright). I don't really give a fuck about their "rights",
which are not directly relevant to free software.

Either you're copying the software, in which case you're affected by
copyright and classified as "distributor", or you aren't. Your attempt
to assert the opposite is nonsense and without justification.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: pgpYXn9UVDDbN.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: