On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 15:00 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > Yes, if you define liberty as being restricted... > > For example, following the FSF version of 'free' you are restricted from > modifying a piece of software so that it uses a library with a different > license, then giving that software to someone else who may already have > the right to use the other required library. No definition of free > or liberty but the unique FSF version can make that understandable. Stop it right now. Stop it and read and think. The FSF's version of Free is clearly stated http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html The revised BSD license is a Free Software license. The FSF advises to use the GNU GPL as much as possible because it contains certain restrictions to make sure that the software never losses freeness. If the 4 freedoms are the base of Free Software, the GPL is the guarantee that no operation with those freedoms will produce undesirable results (loss of any of those freedoms). Software doesn't need freedom. Users and developers do. This freedom is for developers and users alike, and not for the sake of software. Software doesn't feel. Software isn't sent to jail or have to pay fines for helping friends. Removing any of the minimal 4 freedooms to any user/developer is immoral, so they use international copyright law to make sure the 4 freedoms will remain for the duration of the copyright. Claiming that this version of free is unfair makes only sense of you enjoy removing freedom, or at least that some do that to someone else. As this is clearly immoral, I don't believe you think like that, am I right? Rui -- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
