Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
rms at 1407.org
Thu Jul 24 10:14:23 UTC 2008
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:29:26PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> In general the terms I'm speaking of are more permissive than the GPL
> and the GPL is the one that was intentionally incompatible, but that's
> not the point. The point is that the work-as-a-whole clause is an
> immoral restriction.
Don't include GPL'ed software, then.
> No, but it means you haven't read or understood what accepting the
> license takes away from you.
> Depending on your legal system there may or may not be a difference
> between a license and a contract, but having agreed to:
Regardless of legal system, you don't accept the GNU GPL. That's moronic
since the GNU GPL is unilateral.
"You do it this way, or you don't by default of copyright"
> And here's a more pragmatic take on the issue. Someone who says they
> got more contributions back after changing their licenses from GPL to
> something non-copyleft along with eliminating the moral issue of taking
> away the choices of subsequent contributors:
It doesn't take away the choices of subsequent contributons since they
didn't have any by default.
It *grants* extra freedoms to those by defaut of the law.
That these extra freedoms have as a rule of thumb "if you distribute,
you must give back under the same terms" is a *plus* and not a minus.
What you're "crying" about is about the GNU GPL not giving the power to
restrict freedom. An that is very good indeed, keep crying, at least I
don't care for crocodile tears.
Today is Setting Orange, the 59th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3174
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?
More information about the fedora-list