Henning Makholm writes: > Marc van Leeuwen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > But this is not just an exercise for the lawyers; it means for > > instance that Debian should immediately stop distributing "remind", > > even in non-free, since they obviously lack the right to do that! > > That reasoning is plain wrong. OBVIOUSLY the author want to permit > e.g. Debian to distribute the program. And what the author wants and > clealy states is the ONLY thing that matters when it comes to > copyright. > > It does NOT matter what another random license that does not apply to > the program says.
The KDE/GPL issue provides an instructive precedent for refusing to distribute something because of a contradictory license even when the authors of the program "obviously ... want to permit e.g. Debian to distribute the program". In that case, free software distributors declined to distribute something even though the authors wanted it to be distributed, because the license terms were still found to be contradictory. If you want to ridicule this phenomenon, you could compare it to an autoimmune disease, where the natural processes that protect us against bad things also have some unintended consequences and may result in an outcome you would not approve of. Then you could say that the free software movement's very strict construction of the GPL is something like an autoimmune disease (which fits interestingly with the "virus" metaphor). Unfortunately, the KDE/GPL issue also caused interminable flames and acrimony, and it is perhaps better not to bring it up again, except to indicate that there is a (very controversial) precedent. -- Seth David Schoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5
