On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 23:17:06 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote:
> > 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?
I said "resembles to", which is not "is equal to".
My example about charity intentionally amplified the situation to make
it clearer (I was hoping...).
If it confused things further, I apology.
"Investment with no return" seems (at least to me, YMMV) a stronger
phrase than "giving up rights". As a consequence, I didn't mean to say
that you think that free software is a stupid thing to do.
Just that you (well, Henning, IIRC) seemed to want to discourage people
to license in a DFSG-free manner by calling it in a way that makes it
appear as something better avoiding.
Again, I'm not an English native speaker. Apologies if sometimes I do
not choose words well enough...
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgplmMMoN4OY5.pgp
Description: PGP signature