simo simo.sorce@xsec.it wrote:
On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 15:28 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
simo simo.sorce@xsec.it wrote:
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.
User and distributor are not two distinct or identical groups with free software.
And how that matters?
You can't protect the freedom of one while denying the same freedom to the other in any sensible way.
If I own a shop, and but from my own shop, does it matter if I own it? Consumer, tax and other laws apply even to what I sell myself in that case. Both and separately as a consumer and as a vendor. When you talk legal matter the role you play is important.
When you tal 4 freedoms the recipient is important. The role of distributor has to obey the requirements. The users enjoys the freedoms.
I suspect I don't understand the broken English above, nor the point it's trying to make. It looks like it's trying to make the same point I was making, that everyone might be a shop-owner, but I doubt that.
[...]
You keep trying to find FSF at fault,
I don't need to try. I just keep finding bugs in normal operation. Maybe I'm just unlucky. It could get pretty depressing, if I were that way inclined.
you are biased, and you do not recognized humans can commit errors.
I recognise that - I suggested that apologising and correcting errors would be good. However, some of the humans in FSF seem to be regarded as incapable of errors. If they make a mistake, it seems to be claimed as either a mistake in whatever contradicts their latest statement instead (which is then updated), or in the information they were given, or something like that.
[...] That said I never found the FSF betray the core values or change "the scriptures" to match leaders positions. [...]
You'll never find it if you refuse to look for it and deny it when you see it. Elevating their leaders to writers of "scriptures" is madness - you do that, then call me an extremist? Bizarre!
But many others don't see this shift, so you are either claiming that *you* are the holder of the truth or that these other people are part of a conspiracy to change FSF core values.
I have some concerns about its operations, but I don't think there's a conspiracy. I do think the core values have changed over time, without widespread hacker agreement, and I think that's a problem.
[...] Unfortunately, nobody can change your beliefs, because beliefs are not facts. It's like religion and[...]
Oh, it's dead easy to change my beliefs: explain *why* I'm wrong. It's not religion: in God we trust - all others bring data.