Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: > > > Binary only distribution *inhibits* changes, and makes them *harder*, > > without making them strictly impossible. The GPL says that the costs > > of including source are trivial--an extra CD, and therefore requires > > you to share them. > > It may be possible, but it certainly isn't practical.
Exactly my point. > But even, for the sake of argument, granting your point that it is > remotely possible, how does that change matters? You seem to be > saying that if someone needs the source they shouldn't get it, where > if someone doesn't *need* it but wants it really, really bad they > should be able to get it. No, I'm not saying that at all. You said that my arguments against forced-publication clauses would be the same ones that a BSD-license-only person would use against the GPL. I've explained the difference: that the GPL's requirement makes a possibility more practical, which was previously possible, but not practical. The forced-publication clauses, by contrast, take something which was previously impossible, for reasons having nothing to do with copyright law, and--hey, don't even make it possible, let alone practical, but rather, make something *else* possible.