On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 08:23:02PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Matthew Garrett wrote: > >> You could look at it that way. On the other hand, if I release my > >> GPLed code under 3(b) then anyone who receives it can pass on the offer > >> I gave them (under 3(c)). I am then obliged to pass on my modifications > >> directly to people who I never provided binaries to. Is distribution > >> under 3(b) and 3(c) non-free? > > > >If those were the only options, it was the loose consensus that that would > >not be free. > > Really? Wow. That's insane.
Could you please explain "that's insane"? It seems simple and noncontroversial that a free license can be non-free if certain key permissions are removed. (Without GPL3a, if I make any distribution of GPL code, I must archive that source for at least three years, which seems obviously non-free.) -- Glenn Maynard
