Re: non-free and users?
> > No, you can have problems specific to the license without distribution.
> > For example, if the problem is that you can't distribute it.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:33:44AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> But this situation is caused by another act of distribution. Because of
> this another act which happened before I got the program.
Not necessarily -- maybe the reason you can't distribute it is that the
license forbids you from getting a copy.
Or, if you prefer, maybe the problem is simply that you can't get
the copy.
> >>We also (I hope) got an agreement on the fact that providing
> >>people of what they need is good.
> >
> > Sometimes. However, if providing what one person needs would harm
> > someone else, that wouldn't be good. This sort of situation tends to
> > require a specific judgement call, and different people would tend to
> > make different decisions, based on their own outlooks and priorities.
>
> I mostly agree with you. In this case I mean that providing
> people what they need is always good, but can also produce
> bad at the same time or later. Your are talking probably about the sum
> of good and evil produced by the particular action during the infinite
> time period. Probably we should always be specific about such details,
> if it is not clear from context.
>
> Do you agree with this?
I agree that being specific about the details is probably a good thing
for accuracy.
I'm not completely sure I understand all of the rest of that, but it
sounds plausible at least.
--
Raul
Reply to: