🚀 go-pugleaf

oz@ursa.sis.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit) writes:

>Ian Lance Taylor writes [in response to MZ]:

>   			 ...All freedom exists under a certain set of
>   more or less onerous restrictions.  Your argument against the GPL
>   seems to me to be that the GPL is sufficiently onerous that it does
>   not deserve to be called free.

>compare and contrast with the restrictions on the following [eg]: BSD source,
>the X window system and related software, tex, kermit, c-news, icon, CMU lisp,
>byacc ...

>qed.

Those programs are also free.  Does one form of freedom preclude all
others?

As I said in my original post, there are many restrictions on life in
the U.S.A.  There are countries which have fewer restrictions.  Does
that mean that the U.S.A. is not a free country?  (I am not interested
in whether the U.S.A. is actually a free country, I am interested in
whether it is not free because other countries have fewer
restrictions).

Why not tell me what onerous restrictions are applied by the GPL that
should not be applied, and why there are so onerous that the program
is not free?  After all this arguing, that should be simple.  You can
even apply it to a real case; perhaps you can convince me to release
UUCP as a ``truly free'' program rather than under the GPL (actually,
that's probably not true, since my reasons for using the GPL have
little to do with freedom in any sense; but you could try).
-- 
Ian Taylor | ian@airs.com | First to identify quote wins free e-mail message:
`` `The world can grow into an ordered place where all are equal before
    the law.  And the law is just.  Honest.  Without graft.'
   `Is that so important if you are starving?' ''