On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 15:16, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote: > > > > 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 it never has it, how can it lose it... > 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? The GPL removes your freedom to not care about what other libraries might be linked to the code, or the freedom to let other people make their own decision about whether they want to obtain those libraries or not. I can't see any moral difference in this removal of freedom. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
