vijay chopra wrote: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > GPLv3 cares about making the code available and, if forced to, would > rather not > benefit people who won't share than allow them not to share. > > You care about making your code (re-)usable, but, if forced to, > would rather > benefit people who won't share than prevent your code from being > used by them. > > > I think that you've hit the nail on the head here.
> A respectable position that I think you share with Linus. > > Thankfully. I think the kernel is 'safe' - it's reached a point where Tivoisation (and MS/Intel Trusted Computing et al) *probably* won't topple it. A bit like feminism in the west. > Positive discrimination has always been wrong, indeed in this country > (UK) it's illegal* and rightfully so; as you seem to imply GPLv3 is a > kind of positive discrimination for software and unneeded. It is just an analogy and, on consideration, I don't think 'positive discrimination' is quite right. However, like discrimination, we do need to legislate for 'fair' behaviour - the approach where "I treat people as my equal in this community but I don't require them to treat me (or others) as their equal doesn't always work without legislation". GPLv3 is the legislative approach. GPLv2 is the "other cheek" approach. David - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
