On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 03:16:50AM -0700, likot wrote: > again how many times should we argue that you can > modify the darn thing and redistribute your > modification by patches >
How many patches do you know exist for qmail, which are publicly available? Most people probably decide to keep their changes to themselves; the license doesn't encourage redistribution, in fact it goes out of its way to make modification and redistribution of such changes as difficult as possible without making it impossible. In my book, that's almost the same as making a blanket restriction. > feels like your saying that their work are nothing > but crap ( like giving away free beer duh) > Well, if you value the freedom that true Free Software gives, then well, to use your own words, yes they are crap, no matter how good, how technically superior, how bug-free they are. They're scarcely better than completely proprietary, closed source software if they want to add restrictions that make a program non-Free. > THEY ARE GOOD SOFTWARES WITH RESTRICTIVE LICENCE ( > pertaining to djb's work ) Well, if they're good software, then they're good software. Use it if you want to if you believe it. It may be technically superior, but if it will encumber you in the exercise of the freedoms to study, share, and change it, I think it's time to be improving alternatives that do exist, not compromise. The quality of the software is not what's at issue here, licensing is. Just my 2 centavos worth... Dido "The FSF Zealot" Sevilla -- Rafael R. Sevilla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> +63(2) 8177746 ext. 8311 Programmer, InterdotNet Philippines +63(917) 4458925 http://dido.engr.internet.org.ph/ OpenPGP Key ID: 0x5CDA17D8 _ Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
