Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:04:41 +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > > You're not free to modify gnuplot and redistribute the result. > > > > That you're free to distribute patches is nice, but it's not > > enough to make the work free. The freedom to help people by giving > > them an *already-modified* gnuplot is restricted by the copyright > > holder. > > > > It's an artificial restriction on redistribution of derived works, > > making them second-class for the prupose of getting them into > > people's hands. > > Yes it is. It seems a strange, unnecessary restriction. But is it > sufficient to make it non-free? I don't think so.
I do, because a natural, beneficial act (modify the work and redistribute it) that has no technical reason to restrict, is artifically restricted. > In case you are thinking that gnuplot allows people to *only* > distribute the diffs, not the original source to apply the diffs > onto, that is not the case. I quote from gnuplot > help copyright > > "Permission to distribute the released version of the source code > along with corresponding source modifications in the form of a patch > file is granted with same provisions 2 through 4 for binary > distributions." That's what I refer to when I say that it artifically makes derived works into second-class for the purpose of doing the beneficial act of distributing them: the redistributor is artificially restricted from making the work as useful as the original they received. They have only the options to redistribute a work that is more cumbersome for the recipient of that work, or not to redistribute at all. That's not free redistribution. > > I try to judge freedom of a software work by the freedoms granted > > to all recipients of the work, not by the approval of some > > organisation. > > Yes, but you accept some restrictions as legitimate. For example, you > accept the restriction that the GPL makes that says you may not > redistribute a modified work without making the source code available. Yes, which is why I was careful to say "the freedoms granted to all recipients of the work". The power to restrict a recipient of one's work (by choosing not to grant them the freedoms you yourself had when you received the work) reduces the freedoms available to all recipients of the work, even though one party's power may be increased. This is where the useful "your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of the other man's nose" applies: As soon as the act you wish to perform is restricting the freedom of another, you're not contemplating an act of freedom, but an act of power over another. Freedoms should be protected, but only within the limits imposed by the freedoms of others. > That's a restriction, but it's not enough to disqualify it from > being a free software licence. Specifically because it upholds the freedom of the recipient of a derived work from having power exerted over them. > In fact, that restriction is *necessary* to make it a free software > licence in the sense we're talking about. Not really; it's necessary to make it a copyleft license, which is a way of preserving freedom as the work gets passed along. Works can still be free software without being copyleft-licensed, though. A license allowing free redistribution and requiring only attribution be preserved is less restrictive than a copyleft; yet, because it allows any free act (even as it also allows acts of power over others), the work is free software. > So "free" does not mean "no restrictions", it merely means "none of > some sorts of restrictions, but other restrictions are okay". > Likewise the restriction that GPL software must be distributed with > a copy of the appropriate licence. That's right, and I've explained above what restrictions I consider justified, and why, and how to tell the difference. -- \ “Reichel's Law: A body on vacation tends to remain on vacation | `\ unless acted upon by an outside force.” —Carol Reichel | _o__) | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
