Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 05:30:03PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 15:25 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >
> >> Sure we can.  I might convince you that they're in the wrong place --
> >> and certainly debian-legal is the right place for that discussion.  Or
> >> you might convince me that they are in the right place.  Neither of
> >> those is an axiomatic belief.
> >
> > No, I don't think debian-legal /is/ the right place. Debian-legal is the
> > place to discuss whether a license is free or not based on Debian's
> > ideas of freeness, not whether Debian's ideas of freeness are correct.
> > There may not be a more appropriate place at present. That doesn't make
> > the use of debian-legal appropriate.
> 
> Do you actually have any authority to make that proclamation, or is it
> just as much wishful thinking as my statement that this is an
> appropriate place?
> 
> > You believe that there are some languages that are inherently
> > non-free?
> 
> No, I believe some sourceless programs are inherently non-free.  If
> they're not practically modifiable, then they can't be free software.

Does this mean that a program written in C is only free if the user you give
it to is fluent in C ? Or can get someone fluent in C to make modifications
for him ? 

Friendly,

Sven Luther