At 2005-09-27 00:39:51 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > 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.
Let me explain that a little better. There are two major aspects to promoting Free software: First, you have to convince individual authors to allow their software to be shared and used freely. Then you try to convince them to do so in a way that seeks to protect those freedoms in perpetuity (i.e. to use a Copyleft license of some kind). The existence of a community is in itself a powerful argument in trying to convince people to participate and contribute. And the license is an important tool in sustaining the community by giving its ideas a sound legal basis. At no stage does this involve any obligations other than the legal ones you incur by agreeing to a Free software license. Confusing those roles of protection and propagation will only end up weakening both. (I suspect you're not going to like this, but RMS has written and said now and again that the Free in Free software is derived from the same roots as free enterprise, and inspired by the ideals expressed by the American constitution. For example, see <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gpl-american-way.html>) -- 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
