Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote: > 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. > Actually they do - turning a blind eye and doing nothing does affect others. I will not explain - but its called "complicity of silence" (or something like that). But a crude example - if I come across an excellant piece of software - say Firefox and love using it but do not pass it around and do not make the effort to pass it around , then I am turning a blind eye and not enabling others to make the same choice, nor am I strenghtening the Free Software initiative, Infact my silence is allowing IE or MS$ a bit of a better chance - even if its just one more person. Even One person.
> 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. Again, people are affected , for the same reason, when a group keeps silent about anything, when they are not proactive it does affect some one , some where. That they do no participate and cannot be held responsible for not participating is another issue and of course they are not legally liable. > > 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 enabling environment takes effort and that effort is often difficult. Individuals in the community have to overcome that negative feedback and still plug away. There is no short cut > > (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. :) > Maybe we can ask for some license fencing competition :) at the next community meeting. > The GPL does ensure that nobody can legally take away anyone's freedom > to use, modify, or redistribute GPLed software. It does and that is a big freedom > > -- ams > ram _______________________________________________ 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
