Glenn L McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Its debating "user freedom" vs "free software developers freedom", to > argue one is more valuable than the other is a chicken and egg argument.
It's trying to balance the original developer's rights against derived work developer's rights too. I've been writing mostly derived works so far this year. It really wouldn't be good for me to have to specify that all court cases have to be on the other side of the world, which I think I would have to do if a copyleft licence had choice of venue. From previous comments about licences that can't be defended, I guess one could say that my work would be meaninglessly licensed unless I accepted having to pay the CoV cost introduced by the original developer. It seems like a *great* way to call something "free software" and yet stop all but the richest developers working with it. [...] > Id prefer to drop the whole argument at this point, you have made your > position clear, i didnt intend it to get this heavy. Didn't you start this thread? You asked a question, but really wanted to argue about the answer. It would probably have been less heavy if you had put out your stall at the off. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
