Re: Poll results: User views on the FDL issue
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 02:39:48AM -0400, Marty wrote:
> Look at the word "copyright." Notice the last 5 letters. Now, who
> holds it, with respect to GPL'ed software? Who gets to pick that
> license in the first place? Who can change it? Who's entitled to
> enforce it in court? I see the GPL as protecting the author's right to
> protect his offering to the community.
Free Software, including the GPL, is fundamentally about giving up works
to the "commons", allowing anyone to reuse, adapt and distribute it. The
GPL gives these permissions to the public, and attempts to protect users
by requiring that they are always able to obtain source. This is
extremely basic.
> But I see your point, I guess, if you define freedom as "what's in it
> for me." I doubt it's the FSF's philosphy, although unlike you I can't
> presume to speak for them.
Free Software is "what's in it for the public", and it is specifically
not "what's in it for the copyright holder"--that's what proprietary
software is about.
> A complete prohibition of modification does not
> >protect user's rights; on the contrary, it abolishes them.
>
> That's fine with me, because I don't think I have the right to change
> somebody else's speech anyway, much less the need, just so I can call it
> my own. (I tried it once in a high school term paper and got busted.)
Abolishing user rights is fine with you. Okay, that explains a lot.
(Nobody is claiming that anyone should be able to claim someone else's
work as their own.)
> >(Your argument would seem to mean that Qmail is free, because its
> >complete prohibition of modification protects its author's rights.)
>
> bzzz Bad argument. Point's deducted. (I don't even like this game.)
Snide, sarcastic replies that don't respond to my point aren't going
to convince anyone; it my point stands.
> >I'm quite confused as to how anyone can possibly claim that something
> >which can't be modified at all is "free".
>
> At least now you admit the truth about which one of us is confused.
Another snide reply that avoids actually responding to my point; this
point also stands unchallenged.
> If this were publishing house and debian was about something other than
> software (at least, something else that everyone could agree on), I
> might continue persuing this, but I honestly think it's just wasting
> time and people should just get back to releasing sarge.
You seem categorically incapable of responding to my arguments,
confirming my earlier observation. You're also replying to a
civil, honest mail rudely and derisively. I'm not sure what you
think you're contributing with this attitude, or who you believe
will be convinced by it.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: