| 1 |
»Q« wrote: |
| 2 |
> In <news:469D18A7.9090001@××××××.org>, |
| 3 |
> Mike Edenfield <kutulu@××××××.org> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>>> Remember that the GPL has always been about all the users NOT just |
| 8 |
>>> the developers/distributors -- "adapt it to your needs" is not |
| 9 |
>>> allowed when it restricts other users' freedoms. |
| 10 |
>> Very few GPL proponents are willing to make this (rather obviously |
| 11 |
>> true) statement; I'm glad some are. But to be more accurate, one |
| 12 |
>> should say that the GPL has always been about guaranteeing users |
| 13 |
>> freedoms *at the expense of* the developer's freedoms. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Perhaps you mean downstream developers who accept the GPL granted by |
| 16 |
> upstream? The original developers can do whatever they like with their |
| 17 |
> code, since they don't need to license it from anyone. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Yes, I wasn't very clear in my original statement. I was |
| 20 |
referring to developers who choose to use code licensed |
| 21 |
under a GPL or similar license. The GPL removes their |
| 22 |
freedoms, in order to guarantee other freedoms for the bulk |
| 23 |
of the public. I've spoken with many people who balk at |
| 24 |
stating things this way, but it's simple truth. It's really |
| 25 |
a reasonable compromise, IMO. The "downstream" developers |
| 26 |
are making the choice to give up their freedoms by |
| 27 |
using/modifying the code to begin with. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
-- Mike |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Still using IE? Get Firefox! |
| 34 |
http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliates&id=6492&t=1 |
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives