Picking a license

[Patrick Maupin]

On May 12, 10:48 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l... at geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> In message <mailman.121.1273693278.32709.python-l... at python.org>, Ed Keith
> wrote:
>
> > ... but to claim that putting more restrictions on someone give them more
> > freedom is pure Orwellian double speak.
>
> What about the freedom to take away other people’s freedom?

The freedom to take away other people's freedom is a very serious
power that should only be used sparingly.

> What tuple of speak would that be?

Well, if my friend has a slow internet connection, so I give him a
Linux CD which lets him get out of Windows hell (me taking advantage
of RMS's "freedom 2", and my friend taking advantage of RMS's "freedom
0"), and I don't give my friend all the source code (or a written
offer) because, frankly, he wouldn't know what to do with the source
anyway, and it doesn't fit on the CD, and I didn't even bother
downloading the source, at that point I would apparently be in
violation of the GPL license on hundreds of programs, because I would
be violating what the FSF calls "freedom 1".  Or more pedantically, I
would be in violation of section 6 of the GPL v3 license for those
programs on the CD licensed under v3, and in violation of section 3 of
the GPL v2 for those programs on the CD licensed under v2.  In the
case of GPL v3, for example, Ubuntu lets me download code under 6d, so
if I download it and burn it, I would have to use 6a or 6b; if I had
actually received a CD from Ubuntu, I might be able to use 6c, but not
if I downloaded it.

Now I know none of us would ever violate the license like this, but
if, hypothetically speaking, I had made such a CD for my friend, and
then someone came along and explained to me that, by helping wean my
friend from MS Windows in this fashion, I had taken away his freedom
(specifically RMS's "freedom 1"), I would probably conclude that the
person making this accusation was a moron, and that his words were so
meaningless that the only tuple that could possibly represent them was
the empty tuple.

Regards,
Pat