<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=us-ascii" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
* simo wrote, On 22/11/07 15:11:
<blockquote cite="mid:1195744296.15342.175.camel@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 14:33 +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">MJ Ray <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mjr@phonecoop.coop"><mjr@phonecoop.coop></a> writes:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">This looks like a mistake in categories.html. I'll mail FSF about this.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Rather, it's a mistake in GPLv3 *iff* it should be a strong copyleft.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">That's only true if the core value of copyleft is that no more requirements
can be added.
I've always thought that preserving the four freedoms for downstream users
was the core value of copyleft. And I think the GNU project have made this
clear over and over again.
Banning additional restrictions was a means to protecting the four freedoms.
In the GPLv3 process, it was realised that strict adherence to this was not
necessary to protect the four freedoms and that a bit of flexibility can
solve some licence incompatibility issues.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Ciaran, you fell in Mj Ray's trap with both feet.
You are confusing restrictions with requirements.
GPLv3 added new requirements not new restrictions from my POV.
Of course any requirements can be spelt as a restriction from the point
of view of the distributor, but the point of view of the GPL is to
protect *user*'s freedom not distributors freedom.
</pre>
</blockquote>
With this meaning of "user" (as it pertains to the point of view of the
GPL) _one_ of the users freedoms is to distribute, or therefore a
distributor is a user in that sense.<br>
<br>
Because of this I don't think we can say "the point of view of the GPL
is to protect non-distributing *users* freedom" because such a
statement contradicts the idea of the freedoms.<br>
<br>
And so I don't know what you mean by what you said.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1195744296.15342.175.camel@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">FSF changing its basic guidance to create retrospective continuity is
the wrong way to fix this,
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">You're saying that mistakes on webpages should be obeyed forever?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Mj Ray is playing rhetorical tricks here.
Nothing more effective that someone bitter that try to find faults at
all costs and is confrontational.
</pre>
</blockquote>
If this is true, Ciaran has the correct response, which is to inform
rather than dismiss _valid_ questions on the grounds of suspected
intention.<br>
<br>
Even if the questioner is not genuine (and I think he is and so am I)
the questions may be held by others who are genuine, and proper
consideration may still strengthen the official position.<br>
<br>
Sam<br>
</body>
</html>