Adrian Midgley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ownership > Is theft.[2] > > [2] Ah, but from whom? > (and it is a quote, not an assertion)
Proudhon (As a former anarcho-syndicalist, I knew that even without having to Google for it, but here's a link tot he primary source anyway: http://dhm.best.vwh.net/archives/proudhon-property-is-theft.html ) > > License for Derivation > An essential component of the Free Software licences such as the GPL, > and the Open Source licences. You can alter it, with or without > telling > anyone. (If it is FLOSS you must distribute your source code > alterations if you distribute the compiled executable, but crucially in > FUD-busting terms you need not distribute it, and therefore need not > distribute the alterations at all to anyone. No, if the license is a Copyleft license, then the above applies. Are all FLOSS licenses are copyleft licenses? Probably yes. But not all Copyleft licenses are FLOSS licenses, if you listen to Richard Stallman. Its a debatable point. Tim C
