iain d broadfoot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Jeremy Hankins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> To give a concrete example, accurate attribution of changes (e.g., a >> changelog) is a good thing because is strengthens the social >> structures that keep Free Software working, yet it's clearly a limit >> on privacy, albeit relatively minor. > > it's not a limit on privacy, because it only applies when an individual > chooses to distribute a derived work. That's a bit like saying that a sales tax doesn't really take money from people because it only applies if people are spending money anyway. Having to include a changelog entry describing my modifications and (at minimum) that the original author didn't make the change is quite a bit different from simply giving some code to a friend w/o telling whether I even modified the code. One is giving a minimal amount of information to a single person I may trust, the other gives quite a bit more info to anyone who ultimately receives a copy of the code. Neither is really what I'd call a serious invasion of privacy, but it's a matter of degree, not kind. I.e., some invasions of privacy are ok. If you want to argue than an invasion of privacy is bad you have to give some reason other than simply saying that it's an invasion of privacy, because that begs the question. Or at least, that's MHO. -- Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
