Anthony Towns <[email protected]> writes: > On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 10:26:44AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> The idea is that, before I make the software available in any way, >> I should be able to decide who should get access and who should >> not. And that list need not include the author. > > Uh, why, exactly? How is that different than saying "The idea is > that, before I make the software available in any way, I should be > able to decide who should get access to the source and who should > not. And that list need not include people who get copies of the > binaries." Because there's no reason I should have to give it to the author. Giving it to people I distribute binaries to makes sense, because they're using the software (or possessors of the software, if you take that view) and should have the freedoms associated with it. Giving it to the author is simply an extra requirement, albeit one that may make things simpler for the license and/or distributor (which is not the author in this case). -- Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
