Matthew Garrett wrote: >>Would you argue that a requirement to send modifications upstream that >>are not distributed at all would be Free? If not, then why should that >>change if you distribute the software privately to one other person? > > No, since undistributed modification is protected by fair use in many > places. Not the US. (If it involves the creation of copies, as it does in all software-related examples.)
> Attempting to restrict something that's commonly legal would be > outside the bounds of a free license. -- There are none so blind as those who will not see.
