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

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 04:56:37PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:28:41 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 07:26:55PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > > I disagree with your calling "licensing in a DFSG-free manner" as
> > > "giving up rights": this seems to imply that releasing DFSG-free
> > > works is something wrong or inappropriate.
> > Uh, licensing in a DFSG-free manner *is* giving up rights.
> Of course it is.
> Maybe I didn't explain myself clearly enough, my apologies.
> What I meant is that using that description is suitable if you want to
> depict licening in a DFSG-free manner as something wrong that people
> should *avoid*.

If the description is accurate, it's suitable at any time.

> It resembles describing charity as "investment with no return".

Perhaps; though there are differences. Charity does have returns: both
emotionally/psychologically, and in helping people get up on their feet
so they can trade with you / work for you / employ you in future.
Charitable donations might have different tax considerations too.

By contrast, BSD-like licenses do nothing but give up your rights.
Copyleft licenses do something in between -- giving up your rights in
the hope that others will give up there's in return.

> Well, it's not an inaccurate description (I think), but you would use
> such a definition only if you think that charity is a stupid thing to
> do...

So, if I'm parsing you right, you're saying that a person (such as myself)
would only describe free software as giving up rights (such as I did) only
if that person (me) thought that free software was a stupid thing to do?

If that's not what you're trying to say, would you kindly look back over
your argument, and retract the error?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: