At 2005-09-26 15:46:09 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > ams wrote: > > > Now I'm confused.
I'm still confused. I'm afraid I'm finding your argument a bit difficult to follow, and I'm not even quite sure whether you're being sarcastic or not. Nevertheless: > with rights there are responsibilities or duties. We're talking about rights assigned under copyright law in a license. If those rights come with responsibilities or duties, then the license MUST say so explicitly. If it does not, then those duties or responsibilities have no more legal standing than figments of someone's imagination. You can't assign rights in a license, expect people to accept them, then suddenly unveil new requirements after the fact. That makes a mockery of contract and copyright law. And you're missing the point in this earlier message: > Because it would be nice to think we are not talking only licenses and > legalities. We are talking about freedom. A free software license is a tool that seeks to protect freedom while promoting widespread sharing. Its strength lies in its foundation in copyright law. Without that foundation, there would be nothing that could protect your freedom. In short: there is nothing "only" about licenses and the law. They are *fundamental* to the idea of Free software, and they (and the details thereof) cannot be ignored or handwaved away. > *copyleft (very simply stated) is the rule that when redistributing > the program, you cannot add restrictions to deny other people the > central freedoms.* http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Fine. > By not participating in creating that enabling environment is actually > turning a blind eye to the issue of access to choice , access to free > software and in this context freedom. Yes. And by turning a blind eye to those issues, they do not affect *your* freedom in any way. Therefore they are not violating the terms of the license that gives them the freedom to use copylefted software. If they believe in the idea behind Free software, then they might want to participate to a greater degree. But that is entirely their choice, and if they believe or choose otherwise, *you* are not affected. Of course, if you can convince them that it is a good idea for them to participate more, and do more to promote freedom, that would be a good thing. But that isn't a question of obligations. The community's role is partly to create an environment, as you say, that helps people to understand and appreciate the issues; but that isn't the function of the license per se. The two complement each other. (The license can't beat users over the head with the community, and the community can't beat users over the head with the license. :) > I question what kind of freedom it is that does not at the very least > ask of its beneficiaries to make sure others get what they have got, > that is freedom to ensure everyone has the same playing field . The GPL does ensure that nobody can legally take away anyone's freedom to use, modify, or redistribute GPLed software. -- ams _______________________________________________ ilugd mailinglist -- [email protected] http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Event: Freedel 2005, 17th & 18th September, 2005 - http://freedel.in
