Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S129028AbRBGLp6>; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 06:45:58 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S129030AbRBGLpt>; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 06:45:49 -0500
Received: from wire.cadcamlab.org ([156.26.20.181]:47877 "EHLO
	wire.cadcamlab.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S129028AbRBGLpl>; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 06:45:41 -0500
From: Peter Samuelson <peter@cadcamlab.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <14977.13646.729011.755998@wire.cadcamlab.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 05:45:18 -0600 (CST)
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: linux-legal@nl.linux.org, rdiazmartin@vivaldi.net.dhis.org (Roberto Diaz),
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Software Mestizo Manifesto
In-Reply-To: <20010207050632.B10556@cadcamlab.org>
	<E14QSaR-0008RJ-00@the-village.bc.nu>
X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 12) "Channel Islands" XEmacs Lucid
X-Face: ?*2Jm8R'OlE|+C~V>u$CARJyKMOpJ"^kNhLusXnPTFBF!#8,jH/#=Iy(?ehN$jH
        }x;J6B@[z.Ad\Be5RfNB*1>Eh.'R%u2gRj)M4blT]vu%^Qq<t}^(BOmgzRrz$[5
        -%a(sjX_"!'1WmD:^$(;$Q8~qz\;5NYji]}f.H*tZ-u1}4kJzsa@id?4rIa3^4A$
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


[ac]
> Vast amounts of debian included code contains suggestions about use. 

I'll not dispute your word because I know you for an objective person.
But I don't remember coming across any such examples at least recently.
Maybe I just don't remember them because they didn't sound like, well,
manifestos.

> > Also, Roberto -- it is rather presumptuous to assume that all of
> > your (potentially) thousands of contributors from around the world
> > happen to agree

> Sure, but its an opinion so whats the big deal. Its no different to
> RMS view of the world that the GPL discussion and FSF projects push

As may be .. there's still a difference between restrictions on use and
restrictions on distribution.  FSF never even implies anything about
how you are "supposed" to use software -- and discussions on
distribution largely parallel the GPL in any case, which I have already
agreed to.  They are in that sense much less invasive, from the POV of
contributing developers.  (OTOH there is the "sign over your copyrights
to the FSF" convention so in that case they are more invasive.)

I suppose none of this matters in any case, because the GPL allows me
to take your software, strip out the "I'd prefer if you didnt..."
comments and redistribute.  This is in contrast to the old BSD license,
or the Free Documentation License, where it is possible to prevent bits
from being clipped.

Peter
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/