On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 02:29:44PM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote:
quoted text
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 12:24:25PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> | > On 2007-09-14 11:13:11, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> | > >
> | > > The spirit of the GNU GPL is to maintain freedom for all users.
> | > 
> | > You don't seem to get the fact that the BSD license is *more free*
> | > than the GPL because the BSD license imposes *fewer requirements*
> | > on distribution.
> | 
> | You don't seem to get the fact that I'm not even talking about what's
> | more or less free (in your definition). The BSD has fewer requirements,
> | but it allows some users to not have the freedoms you claim to defend.
> 
> And no, it does not.

I'd love to see how an user who gets a modified binary version has the
freedom to modify it. Go ahead. Prove me that it doesn't allow some users
to loose freedom...

quoted text
> What is released under the BSD license is more free (which is not what
> you are talking about). But all the users of the code released under
> the BSD license have the same freedoms. There's no difference for
> 'some' users, they're all the same .. even if 'some' users create baby
> mulching machines from your code.

I think it is clear you don't grasp anything beying mere eyesight. What
about binary derivatives, do users who receive them have the freedom to
modify the program? That's rich!

quoted text
> I know what argument you are trying to make, but you're not making it.

There's no blind so bad as that which refuses to see. There's nothing I
can do to change that.

quoted text
> What is released under a BSD license is free software

Yes. Most definitely.

quoted text
> (in my
> definition more free than what is released under the GPL). All users
> of said code have the same freedoms (and the same duties : DO NOT
> REMOVE THE LICENSE OR COPYRIGHT NOTICE).

No, that's merely all users who receive a copy from you. Not those
afterwards. Those users have no guarantee at all.

quoted text
> Scenario A, this code is released under the BSD license. You can take
> it, improve it and never share your changes with anyone.
> 
> Scenario B, this code is released under the GPL license. You can take
> it, improve it and never share your changes with anyone.
> 
> Where is the difference ? How did you avoid the social failure you
> spoke of ?

Try going one step beyond mere eyesight. The moment a copy is given to
someone else, in each scenario:

Scenario A, a copy can (and frequently is) given without source code.
            the receiver of said copy has lost freedom, allowed by BSD

Scenario B, a copy can (and frequently is) given without source code.
	    the receiver of said copy has lost freedom, but since it is
	    forbidden by the GNU GPL, it is a copyright violation and
	    the giver is running into serious trouble...

quoted text
> I'll tell you where the difference is (with an example). You can sell
> your changed version in scenario A but you can not sell it in scenario
> B (given the 'never share your changes with anyone'-part). But you can
> use it all you like.

Do you really think you are not allowed to charge money for distributin
copies of GPL'ed software? Who do you trust who told it to you? Are you
really that credulous?

Rui


-- 
Wibble.
Today is Boomtime, the 38th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173
+ 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...?