On 10 Mai, 17:06, a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote: > In article > <074b412a-c2f4-4090-a52c-4d69edb29...@d39g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, > Paul Boddie <p...@boddie.org.uk> wrote: > >Actually, the copyleft licences don't "force" anyone to "give back > >changes": they oblige people to pass on changes. > > IMO, that's a distinction without a difference, particularly if you > define "give back" as referring to the community rather than the original > project.
There is a difference: I know of at least one vendor of GPL-licensed solutions who received repeated requests that they make their sources available to all-comers, even though the only obligation is to those receiving the software in the first place. Yes, the code can then become public - if Red Hat decided to only release sources to their customers, and those customers shared the sources publicly, then CentOS would still be around as a Red Hat "clone" - but there are situations where recipients of GPL-licensed code may decide that it is in their best interests not to just upload it to the public Internet. > With the FSF itself using "pressure" in the FAQ entry you > linked to, I have no clue why you and Ben Finney object to my use of > "force". Because no-one is being forced to do anything. Claiming that "force" is involved is like hearing a schoolboy saying, "I really wanted that chocolate, but why is that man forcing me to pay for it?" Well, you only have to pay for it if you decide you want to take it - that's the only reasonable response. Paul -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
