Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Matthew Garrett wrote: >> Any situation which inhibits your ability to carry out any of the GPL's >> requirements results in you no longer being able to distribute the code. >> I still don't see how this is any less of a practical problem for >> users than the copyright holder being able to terminate the license. > >It isn't any less of a practical problem. However, it is a less >preventable problem. Debian can simply not accept revokable licenses, >but Debian cannot in any way prevent claims by third-party patent >holders. Arbitrary patent claims cannot be prevented, but that does not >mean Debian should stop distributing all software.
Why are we more concerned by one cause of a practical problem than we are about another cause of the same problem? "Because we can do something about it" is not a good answer - it provides almost nothing to our users, because they suffer from the uncertainty of not knowing if their license will vanish at any point anyway. We shouldn't be worried about freedom from a philosophical masturbation perspective. We should be worried about freedom because it has real, practical effects on what people can do with the software we ship. Theoretical limitations that have no real practical impact on our users should not be items of concern. How many times have license termination clauses been used against free software authors? How many times have patents been used against free software authors? Which of these is worse? Which of these do we put up with? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
