"Hyman Rosen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
amicus_curious wrote:
My belief is that the GPL is totally unnecessary because what it
> seeks to prevent isn't a viable outcome to beging with.
It seeks to prevent a software user from being unable to run,
read, change, or share a program. Since software users are
routinely denied these freedoms, I fail to see why you think
what the GPL prevents is not a viable outcome.
I would agree that providing source code itself is enough to enable a user
to do all of that regardless of the fact that changes are so unlikely to
ever occur. The GPL only adds a provision to enforce this on someone who
might be unwilling to do so with some improvement absent the requirement to
divulge any new source. I think that this would never happen in any case.
I don't think that it has ever happened in the past either. Who but the
project team has ever made any change to any major project?
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
