On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Abe Kornelis wrote: > --> You raise a touchy point. I'll give you two replies. > 1) Any solution that I would provide would equally apply to > terrorist groups. Replace the Chinese dissidents with > Al-Qaeda members - their situations are comparable > but the way we think about their motives and goals > are utterly opposite!
Absolutely. Software that prevents terrorists from making use of it is not free. > 2) I find it hard to believe that I should feel compelled to help > these dissidents to solve their problems, however sympathetic > their cause may seem. And if I would I'd still have to solve > the conundrum above - without discriminating (see OSD). It's not about sympathy of cause (though that's the reason to choose "chinese" as the concrete example). It's about determining whether recipients have sufficient liberty of use to consider the software free. The above is no conundrum. Any group should be able to share modifications among themselves without the outside world (including the original author) being aware of it. You're not compelled to write nor distribute open source software. But if you want the benefits of doing so, you must do so fully. -- Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.dagon.net/> -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
