On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 14:33 +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> writes:
This looks like a mistake in categories.html. I'll mail FSF about this.
Rather, it's a mistake in GPLv3 *iff* it should be a strong copyleft.
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.
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.
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.