> > No, you can have problems specific to the license without distribution. > > For example, if the problem is that you can't distribute it.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:33:44AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: > But this situation is caused by another act of distribution. Because of > this another act which happened before I got the program. Not necessarily -- maybe the reason you can't distribute it is that the license forbids you from getting a copy. Or, if you prefer, maybe the problem is simply that you can't get the copy. > >>We also (I hope) got an agreement on the fact that providing > >>people of what they need is good. > > > > Sometimes. However, if providing what one person needs would harm > > someone else, that wouldn't be good. This sort of situation tends to > > require a specific judgement call, and different people would tend to > > make different decisions, based on their own outlooks and priorities. > > I mostly agree with you. In this case I mean that providing > people what they need is always good, but can also produce > bad at the same time or later. Your are talking probably about the sum > of good and evil produced by the particular action during the infinite > time period. Probably we should always be specific about such details, > if it is not clear from context. > > Do you agree with this? I agree that being specific about the details is probably a good thing for accuracy. I'm not completely sure I understand all of the rest of that, but it sounds plausible at least. -- Raul
