[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: > Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> * Software is a social artifact with significant social consequences, >> and therefore ought to be responsive to social pressures (i.e., not >> just individuals). > [...] >> My favorite is the first, which is why I think freedoms should attach >> to use. I'm willing to take this disagreement as fundamental, though >> (which for the current purposes means we'll argue it out if we're ever >> sitting together over a beer, but probably not 'till then). > > So this is a different sort of argument, and calls for a different > response. It's not about what makes a license a free software > license, but more fundamentally, about how software ought to work. First of all, I must have radically misunderstood the message I was replying to above. I was simply pointing out that there are more ways than one to argue toward Free Software -- and certainly other ways than your artificiality of copyright argument. My attitude is that we should acknowledge that and not try too hard to settle on a particular grounding for Free Software. > Since we are presuming free speech, and a broadly free-software > consensus, we aren't going to tolerate laws that *prohibit* > publication. So the only question is: should we have a law that > *requires* publication? I'm not sure you're arguing to the point here. If you are, I'm misunderstanding you. How is this an argument for attaching freedoms to copies rather than use? -- Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03