On 22/01/2008, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jan 22 11:49:57 2008 > > From: Lee Braiden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Freedom to take freedom (was Re: [Fsfe-uk] Accountants need MS...) > > Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:52:50 +0000 > > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 1) > > X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 06:44:33 -0500 > > X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 > > List-Id: Free Software and the United Kingdom <fsfe-uk.gnu.org> > > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > On Monday 21 January 2008 21:31:03 Dave Crossland wrote: > > > Debian rejected them because Red Hat made a RETARDED additional > > > anti-tivoisation restriction. But this is a lot better than non-free > > > Microsoft fonts. > > > > You know... with most things in the free software movement, I'm right there, > > in total agreement with Stallman and the FSFE and all. Sometimes I wonder > > though... if we agree in principle that some freedoms (such as the freedom > > to > > enslave) should not be given, on the basis that they take freedom from > > others... then why do we flat-out reject additional restrictions? > > Do we flat-out reject additional restrictions? As I understand > the emails from Dave Crossland, it's that Red Hat used the GPLv2 > (which forbids additional restrictions) and then contradicted it > by adding one, leaving others with no valid licence. Basic error. > I didn't think additional restrictions were a problem themselves.
Right: There is a distinction between GPLv2 and the software freedom movement overall :-) -- Regards, Dave _______________________________________________ Fsfe-uk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
