[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Is forcing "upstream" distribution really OK for free software?
From: |
Barry Margolin |
Subject: |
Re: Is forcing "upstream" distribution really OK for free software? |
Date: |
Thu, 08 Jul 2004 04:34:59 -0400 |
User-agent: |
MT-NewsWatcher/3.4 (PPC Mac OS X) |
In article <x5llhvc4hk.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
wrote:
> Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes:
>
> > I assume the FSF's position is mirrored in the GPL. A license that
> > requires that you obey the original developer's request to send
> > changes back to him is not compatible with the GPL, so I don't think
> > it corresponds to the FSF's philosophy.
>
> That does not follow. The FSF philosophy has a _lot_ of issues that
> are not reflected in the GPL. Not because they would not be part of
> the FSF philosophy, but because the FSF would consider it even more
> wrong to enforce them by way of a licence. For example, the GPL has
> no advertising clause. Not because the FSF does not want advertising
> (just see the GNU/Linux issue), but because it does not belong in
> there.
The GPL prohibits adding any additional requirements when redistributing
-- so even though they might be in favor of advertising in general, you
can't redistribute GPLed code with a license that *requires* that the
recipient advertise.
Similarly, while they might think it's a nice thing to send
modifications back to the original author, the official position
embodied in the GPL is that you can't require this.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
Message not available
Re: Is forcing "upstream" distribution really OK for free software?, Martin Dickopp, 2004/07/08
Re: Is forcing "upstream" distribution really OK for free software?, John Hasler, 2004/07/08