On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 03:10:24AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > I see nothing other than an appeal to a silent majority. Do you really > want me to post the lurker song? You're getting awfully close. > > Anyway, no points to answer; my previous mail stands.
Evading Matthew's counterarguments doesn't convince anyone but yourself. You're claiming, as far as I can tell, that any license that can be twisted in a non-free way is categorically non-free. Since that's possible with just about every license, that claim is obviously false. Unless the BSD license is non-free, since one might claim that "redistribution and use" means both, not either, so you must redistribute the work to be allowed to use it; the MIT license is non-free, claiming that "supporting documentation" applies to documentation for the work that's created and distributed independently by a third party; that GPL#6 "impose further restrictions" forbids me from writing code in an obscure, hard-to-read coding style (eg. GNU's), since the ability to modify a work is reduced as a result. None of these licenses mean any of these things, but the words can be twisted and people could claim it. That doesn't make the licenses non-free, it doesn't mean the licenses need to be changed (it won't help), and it doesn't necessarily mean that obviously bogus interpretations would stand in court-- that's one of the big reasons we strongly recommend using well-established licenses (such as the above three). -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]