Re: Choice of venue, was: GUADEC report
Josh Triplett <josh.trip@verizon.net> wrote:
>Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Any situation which inhibits your ability to carry out any of the GPL's
>> requirements results in you no longer being able to distribute the code.
>> I still don't see how this is any less of a practical problem for
>> users than the copyright holder being able to terminate the license.
>
>It isn't any less of a practical problem. However, it is a less
>preventable problem. Debian can simply not accept revokable licenses,
>but Debian cannot in any way prevent claims by third-party patent
>holders. Arbitrary patent claims cannot be prevented, but that does not
>mean Debian should stop distributing all software.
Why are we more concerned by one cause of a practical problem than we
are about another cause of the same problem? "Because we can do
something about it" is not a good answer - it provides almost nothing to
our users, because they suffer from the uncertainty of not knowing if
their license will vanish at any point anyway.
We shouldn't be worried about freedom from a philosophical masturbation
perspective. We should be worried about freedom because it has real,
practical effects on what people can do with the software we ship.
Theoretical limitations that have no real practical impact on our users
should not be items of concern. How many times have license termination
clauses been used against free software authors? How many times have
patents been used against free software authors? Which of these is
worse? Which of these do we put up with?
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.legal@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: