Scripsit Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 02:54, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > It must be possible for me to enjoy the freedoms without > > communicating with anybody else but those whom I voluntarily > > decide to distribute the software to. > Why should I have to communicate with anyone, even in a situation of > copyleft code distribution? Well, distribution is a form of communication. It would be too much to require that I should be able to distribute software to someone without sending them data (i.e. communication). > And how does your proposal proscribe the limits of information > disclosure when one does voluntarily decide to distribute the > software? It says that the only party I can be required to disclose anything (such as the source) to is the one to whom I distribute. > So communication isn't the root issue. The root issue is the extent of > one's information disclosure obligation (at the point of distribution). No. If that were the root issue, we wouldn't have problems with "you must send patches upstream" licenses - they do not require me to disclose anything to upstream that I don't have to disclose to the recipient I choose. On the contrary the root issue is exactly that such a license tries to dictate *whom* I must disclose this information to. -- Henning Makholm "I didn't even know you *could* kill chocolate ice-cream!"
