From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro on
In message <mailman.198.1273891662.32709.python-list(a)>, Ed Keith

> On Fri, 5/14/10, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> <ldo(a)geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>> In message <mailman.158.1273844352.32709.python-list(a)>,
>> Ed Keith wrote:
>>> Yes, under the GPL every one has one set of freedoms,
>>> under the MIT or Boost license every one has more freedoms. Under other
>>> licenses they have fewer freedoms.
>> But what about the “freedom” to take away other
>> people's freedom? Is that really “freedom”?
> Yes.

But that's a “freedom” that non-GPL licences do not give you, that the GPL
does. So which licence gives you more “freedoms”, again?
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro on
In message
<93d67bd9-6721-4759-a3de-412b95b29a93(a)>, Paul
Boddie wrote:

> Although Bill Gates once apparently claimed that no-one needs the
> source code for their word processor or office suite ...

Thereby committing the sealed-bonnet fallacy.
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro on
In message <mailman.164.1273846256.32709.python-list(a)>, Ed Keith

> But if my client give someone else a copy of the binary I gave them, they
> are now in violation.

Why would they be in violation? It seems to me a violation would only occur
if someone asked them for the source, and they refused.
From: Robert Kern on
On 2010-05-15 22:05 , Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message
> <ca0d6fd3-4883-4a82-bbea-a33c283c42a9(a)>, Patrick
> Maupin wrote:
>> On May 14, 9:21 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro<l...(a)geek-
>> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>>> In message<mailman.180.1273860694.32709.python-l...(a)>, Ed
>>> Keith wrote:
>>>> I just refuse to use [the GPL] in any code for a client, because I
>>>> do not want to require someone who does not know source code from Morse
>>>> code code to figure out what they need to do to avoid violating the
>>>> license.
>>> Why don't you just put the source code on the same disc you send them,
>>> and tell them to pass copies of the entire disc to anyone they want?
>> What you would really have to tell them is "don't pass along the
>> program *unless* you copy the whole disk." That's no longer a
>> courtesy -- that's a mandate. By not using the GPL, Ed avoids having
>> to mandate to his customer how to treat the software he has delivered
>> to them.
> But that's what “copyright” means, it means “right to copy”. It's his right
> to impose terms on how copies of stuff he created are treated.

It's also his right to choose which terms to impose, depending on the client and
project. If he doesn't think the GPL serves his goals, then he shouldn't use it.
It shouldn't matter to him how well it serves your goals or how unburdensome you
personally find the GPL's requirements.

Robert Kern

"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
an underlying truth."
-- Umberto Eco

From: Patrick Maupin on
On May 16, 9:19 am, Ed Keith <e_...(a)> wrote:
> --- On Sat, 5/15/10, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...(a)geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> > >> But what about the “freedom” to take away
> > other
> > >> people’s freedom? Is that really “freedom”?
> > > Yes.
> > But that’s a “freedom” that non-GPL licences do not
> > give you, that the GPL
> > does. So which licence gives you more “freedoms”,
> > again?

[ stuff snipped]

> There is clearly some kind of communication problem here. Either were are speaking different languages with some faulty transaction program interviewing, or one of is is either stupid or senile (seems a bit early for me, but it is possible); or you are being disingenuous.

Lawrence is certainly being overly clever. He is somewhat technically
correct, but is playing a shell game where he moves around who the
potential "freedom" giver is and who the potential "freedom" receiver

The problem is, you have to handle this sort of argument very
carefully, or someone will come along and then point out (again,
somewhat technically correctly) that copyright law restricts the
"freedoms", and the GPL license only gives them out, so where's the
problem? It's easy to lose sight of where the pea is, particularly
when you were expecting straightforward communication rather than this
sort of sophistry.

When people in this thread previously said that permissive licenses
give you the "freedom" to take away others' "freedoms", but the GPL
does not, the "you" they are referring to is "a person who has
received the software from someone else".

When Lawrence is now saying that the GPL gives you the "freedom" to
take away others' "freedoms" but other licenses do not, the "you" he
is referring to is the "author of the software", who I think we all
agree retains more "freedom" to restrict others' "freedoms" if he uses
the GPL than if he uses a permissive license.

So in this instance, the thing that disappeared under the shell where
you thought it was and reappeared under a different shell was the very
definition of the word "you". But don't feel bad; some of the
thimbleriggers around here are quite accomplished, and very hard to
catch out.