Re: Freedom to take freedom (was Re: [Fsfe-uk] Accountants need MS...)

[Dave Crossland]

On 22/01/2008, MJ Ray <address@hidden> wrote:
> > From address@hidden Tue Jan 22 11:49:57 2008
> > From: Lee Braiden <address@hidden>
> > To: address@hidden
> > Subject: Freedom to take freedom (was Re: [Fsfe-uk] Accountants need MS...)
> > Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:52:50 +0000
> > Message-Id: <address@hidden>
> > X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 1)
> > X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 06:44:33 -0500
> > X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
> > List-Id: Free Software and the United Kingdom <fsfe-uk.gnu.org>
> > Sender: address@hidden
> >
> > On Monday 21 January 2008 21:31:03 Dave Crossland wrote:
> > > Debian rejected them because Red Hat made a RETARDED additional
> > > anti-tivoisation restriction. But this is a lot better than non-free
> > > Microsoft fonts.
> >
> > You know... with most things in the free software movement, I'm right there,
> > in total agreement with Stallman and the FSFE and all.  Sometimes I wonder
> > though... if we agree in principle that some freedoms (such as the freedom 
> > to
> > enslave) should not be given, on the basis that they take freedom from
> > others... then why do we flat-out reject additional restrictions?
>
> Do we flat-out reject additional restrictions?  As I understand
> the emails from Dave Crossland, it's that Red Hat used the GPLv2
> (which forbids additional restrictions) and then contradicted it
> by adding one, leaving others with no valid licence.  Basic error.
> I didn't think additional restrictions were a problem themselves.

Right: There is a distinction between GPLv2 and the software freedom
movement overall :-)

-- 
Regards,
Dave