* simo wrote, On 22/11/07 15:11: > On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 14:33 +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote: > >> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>>> This looks like a mistake in categories.html. I'll mail FSF about this. >>>> >>> Rather, it's a mistake in GPLv3 *iff* it should be a strong copyleft. >>> >> That's only true if the core value of copyleft is that no more requirements >> can be added. >> >> I've always thought that preserving the four freedoms for downstream users >> was the core value of copyleft. And I think the GNU project have made this >> clear over and over again. >> >> Banning additional restrictions was a means to protecting the four freedoms. >> In the GPLv3 process, it was realised that strict adherence to this was not >> necessary to protect the four freedoms and that a bit of flexibility can >> solve some licence incompatibility issues. >> > > Ciaran, you fell in Mj Ray's trap with both feet. > You are confusing restrictions with requirements. > > GPLv3 added new requirements not new restrictions from my POV. > Of course any requirements can be spelt as a restriction from the point > of view of the distributor, but the point of view of the GPL is to > protect *user*'s freedom not distributors freedom. > With this meaning of "user" (as it pertains to the point of view of the GPL) _one_ of the users freedoms is to distribute, or therefore a distributor is a user in that sense.
Because of this I don't think we can say "the point of view of the GPL is to protect non-distributing *users* freedom" because such a statement contradicts the idea of the freedoms. And so I don't know what you mean by what you said. > >>> FSF changing its basic guidance to create retrospective continuity is >>> the wrong way to fix this, >>> >> You're saying that mistakes on webpages should be obeyed forever? >> > > Mj Ray is playing rhetorical tricks here. > Nothing more effective that someone bitter that try to find faults at > all costs and is confrontational. > If this is true, Ciaran has the correct response, which is to inform rather than dismiss _valid_ questions on the grounds of suspected intention. Even if the questioner is not genuine (and I think he is and so am I) the questions may be held by others who are genuine, and proper consideration may still strengthen the official position. Sam
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
