Re: [Fsfe-uk] Stalls at Marxism 2003

[Alex Hudson]

On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 12:34:10PM +0100, Chris Croughton wrote:
> > Tim's complied, but feels, IIRC, it's a bit hypocritical.
> 
> It is indeed.  But then that fits with RMS/FSF's view of 'free'
> software, which they don't allow to be limited in distribution or use
> (for instance by saying "not permitted for military use") but they do
> allow to be limited by being incompatible with other free licences (for
> instance if you have to send modifications back to the creator of the
> software).

If you have to send mods back to the creator, it's not free software. The
RMS/FSF 'view' of that is quite clear I think. Look at the reasoning why
the OPL is not considered a free software licence. Being 'incompatible'
with non-free licences is the nature of the FSF, I'm afraid.

IIRC, the problem RMS has with O'Reilly is that they would just be publishing
the books without actually putting any revenue back the author's way. I don't
see what is wrong by stating a preference for people buying from a publisher
like GNU who will do that. 

O'Reilly have their own cause at heart. Nothing wrong with that, but RMS also
has his own views and I don't think there's anything wrong with that either.
I don't think there's anything wrong with stating your preference, either.

Cheers,

Alex.