On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 02:47:02AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 08:29:59AM +0100, Yorick Cool wrote: > > > Climbing a 4,000 foot mountain is certainly possible. Its just > > > inconvenient [well, unless you do that kind of stuff for fun]. > > > Personally, I do not find this license to be free, even though its just > > > a "convenience" issue. > > > > Seeing as that is a void condition which is totally unenforceable[1], the > > license is just the same as if the condition were inexistent, so yeah, > > it's as good as free. > > Do you just want to nitpick and distract from what little conversation there > is here? Do you have a response to his actual point (that "convenience" > arguments are a weak attempt to ignore non-free restrictions, which can be > applied to almost anything)? > First off, hello. Actually, I wasn't aiming to nitpick. My general attitude is not to rant on endlessly when I feel my opinion is more or less represented in the conversation already, hence why I didn't elaborate on the general conversation. I try not to add noise, but only to post when I have something releatively "new" (in a very loose sense, granted) to say. Anyway, my point wasn't that much of a nitpick. The "and what about this absurd license" argument crops up regurlarly to try to demonstrate that requirements having nothing to do with software freedom per se can impede it's freedom. The problem is that the particular "absurd license" argument fails miserably in that such licenses' absurd requirements would be unenforceable[1]. This statement does not resolve the "convenience" problem, because even if the "absurd license" argument is unvalid, one can still argue that inconvenient clauses are non-free (FWIW, I tend to believe the contrary regarding a certain number of specific "unconvenient" clauses). I believe that is far from being a nitpick, because the argument is thrown around quite often, and having to deal with it creates alot of unuseful noise which does not help resolve the specific question at hand either way. Hence why I pointed out the weakness of the argument. Anyway, what do you think distracted most from the conversation, my initial remark, or your message and my reply? Yorick [1]In civil law anyway.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature