On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 01:10:32PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 04:03:05PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: > > You really need to justify it based on the basic freedoms that the DFSG is > > meant to guarantee. Note that not costing money isn't one of those > > freedoms. Nor is preventing travel or a prolonged stay. Justifying > > non-freeness in terms of basic freedoms has been done to my personal > > satisfaction in this case, but the fact that people constantly are falling > > back on the cost argument shows that the word hasn't gotten out. > > I assume you are talking about this statement made by Steve Langasek: > > | Sure; the distribution rights are contingent on accepting the specified > | court's jurisdiction over the license agreement. This impinges simple > | redistribution. > > Please explain how this is different than accepting any random country's > copyright laws when distributing copyrighted material created by a citizen of > that country.
Basically, the clincher for me is that our mirrors can't simply carry the software we distribute without coming under some fair degree of risk due to this issue. True, it is only a single potentiality that they are actually sued for this. But I feel that the simple redistribution of software is a guaranteed right and should be totally unencumbered. When you modify or use the software, things can be a bit more complex (which is why we accept the GPL's restrictions on modification and distribution) but that's not the case here. - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
