On Friday 14 September 2007, 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...
Hello again Rui, Though copyright laws and even more so, reverse engineering laws, vary around the world, I'll try to explain to you how things work here in the US. Over here, if you own a copy of a program, you can modify it as much as you want with the exception of circumventing copyright protection mechanisms due the DMCA. Prior to the enactment of the DMCA, you could do anything you wanted with your copy of the work. Though you may see "no reverse engineering" clauses in many commercial licenses, they actually are null and void because you have the right to modify your copy of the work. Of course, most commercial software forbids redistribution, so you cannot redistribute your modified version of the work/program, but the only thing stopping you from modifying a closed source binary application is your own ability. In the US, and in many countries, you have the right to modify any work to suit your personal needs. It's the law and no license terms can remove your right, so it is impossible for an end user to lose freedom. Though you are right that ordinary people have a responsibility to know the law and that lawyers are merely paid experts, you have none the less failed in your responsibility. You have obviously never bothering to read any of the copyright laws on any nation, or any of the relevant case law or findings, or any of the international treaties regarding copyrights. Of course, you are free to have strong feelings about whatever you like, and hold opinions based on flawed understanding, but as long as you insist on remaining uneducated about the laws, you are failing yourself and failing your supposed "duty" to make things clear. Please stop. jcr
