On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 04:06:56PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
| On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 02:29:44PM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote:
| > On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 12:24:25PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
| > | > On 2007-09-14 11:13:11, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
| > | > >
| > | > > The spirit of the GNU GPL is to maintain freedom for all users.
| > | >
| > | > You don't seem to get the fact that the BSD license is *more free*
| > | > than the GPL because the BSD license imposes *fewer requirements*
| > | > on distribution.
| > |
| > | You don't seem to get the fact that I'm not even talking about what's
| > | more or less free (in your definition). The BSD has fewer requirements,
| > | but it allows some users to not have the freedoms you claim to defend.
| >
| > And no, it does not.
|
| I'd love to see how an user who gets a modified binary version has the
| freedom to modify it. Go ahead. Prove me that it doesn't allow some users
| to loose freedom...
If this modified version is released under the BSD license, it's under
the BSD license and therefor the user has this right. If it's released
under another license (with the copyright notice still intact of
course), it's no longer released under the BSD license so your point
is moot. Software released under the BSD license gives the user
certain rights. Software released under another license may restrict
some of these rights.
| > What is released under the BSD license is more free (which is not what
| > you are talking about). But all the users of the code released under
| > the BSD license have the same freedoms. There's no difference for
| > 'some' users, they're all the same .. even if 'some' users create baby
| > mulching machines from your code.
|
| I think it is clear you don't grasp anything beying mere eyesight. What
| about binary derivatives, do users who receive them have the freedom to
| modify the program? That's rich!
If the code is released under the BSD license then YES ! Is this very
hard to grasp ?
| > I know what argument you are trying to make, but you're not making it.
|
| There's no blind so bad as that which refuses to see. There's nothing I
| can do to change that.
Yeah, read on...
| > What is released under a BSD license is free software
|
| Yes. Most definitely.
|
| > (in my
| > definition more free than what is released under the GPL). All users
| > of said code have the same freedoms (and the same duties : DO NOT
| > REMOVE THE LICENSE OR COPYRIGHT NOTICE).
|
| No, that's merely all users who receive a copy from you. Not those
| afterwards. Those users have no guarantee at all.
If I restrict the rights of my users, there's new restrictions - yes.
If I give (or sell) the code under a BSD license then those users get
the same rights. Say, weren't you arguing this exact case some days
ago ?
| > Scenario A, this code is released under the BSD license. You can take
| > it, improve it and never share your changes with anyone.
| >
| > Scenario B, this code is released under the GPL license. You can take
| > it, improve it and never share your changes with anyone.
| >
| > Where is the difference ? How did you avoid the social failure you
| > spoke of ?
|
| Try going one step beyond mere eyesight. The moment a copy is given to
| someone else, in each scenario:
|
| Scenario A, a copy can (and frequently is) given without source code.
| the receiver of said copy has lost freedom, allowed by BSD
Exactly.
| Scenario B, a copy can (and frequently is) given without source code.
| the receiver of said copy has lost freedom, but since it is
| forbidden by the GNU GPL, it is a copyright violation and
| the giver is running into serious trouble...
Exactly.
So, that's pretty good. Looks like you read what I wrote hereunder.
| > I'll tell you where the difference is (with an example). You can sell
| > your changed version in scenario A but you can not sell it in scenario
| > B (given the 'never share your changes with anyone'-part). But you can
| > use it all you like.
^^^^ this part ^^^^ (where I say exactly what you just said)
| Do you really think you are not allowed to charge money for distributin
| copies of GPL'ed software? Who do you trust who told it to you? Are you
| really that credulous?
So .. maybe you did not read what I wrote ? And you call me blind ?
"given the 'never share your changes with anyone'-part" .. isn't that
*EXACTLY* what I said ?
Let me spell it out for you *AGAIN* : You can not sell your changed
version [in binary format] while keeping your changes to yourself.
Again, I am making your argument and now you are just repeating me.
Where did you get the notion that I would think you're not allowed to
charge money for distributing copies of GPL'ed software ? I actually
read the GPL once, you know.
If I want to keep my changes to myself, under the GPL I can not sell
my own version of the program. This is what you've been ranting about
all this time, are you really this stupid ? BUT I CAN MAKE THESE
CHANGES FOR MYSELF AND NEVER SHARE THEM. The GPL does not prevent
this. In your words, if I were to do this, I'm stealing your freedom.
I've been repeating myself for quite some time now. I'm guessing
others on this list got the message. If you haven't yet I don't think
you ever will. I'll give up now. Feel free to send me some more of
your nice nonsense - it gives me a good laugh. [1]
Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd
[1]: and again, I insult you, but don't let that stop you from
ignoring the advice you've been giving me and others to stop replying.
--
>++++++++[<++++++++++>-]<+++++++.>+++[<------>-]<.>+++[<+
+++++++++++>-]<.>++[<------------>-]<+.--------------.[-]
http://www.weirdnet.nl/
