[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] fork with better wording, perha

From: John Sullivan
Subject: Re: [GNU-linux-libre] fork with better wording, perhaps ?
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 18:04:59 -0400
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux)

"ag ag01" <address@hidden> writes:

>> The only way I can think of it to consider is a restriction is if 
>> Tivoization were considered a
>> legitimate activity to begin with.
> Definition of "restrict" from Wiktionary:
>   "1. To restrain within bounds; to limit; to confine; as, to restrict worlds 
> to a particular
> meaning; to restrict a patient to a certain diet."
> Making murder a crime is a restriction, it's one I agree with and one that's 
> purpose is to protect
> the freedom of others but that doesn't change the fact that it's a 
> restriction. The anti-tivoization
> clause in GPLv3 is also a restriction that tries to protect freedom.
>> Framing copyleft as a "restriction" is not a good idea. This goes back to 
>> what John said.
> If you agree with the restriction then you might want to note how you think 
> it will help protect
> freedom but if you want to stay unbiased I don't see a problem just calling 
> it a restriction. It
> should probably be changed to say "restricts distribution" instead of 
> "restricts use" though.
> The only big problem with the wording of seems to be 
> calling the licenses "OSS"
> which is biased in favor of Open Source (it also has non-free Google 
> Analytics spyware but that's
> unrelated.)

In that case, "permissive" licenses also include restrictions -- but
they are not described as such.


John Sullivan | Executive Director, Free Software Foundation
GPG Key: 61A0963B | |

Do you use free software? Donate to join the FSF and support freedom at

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]