Subject: Re: FSBs and mechanized documentation
From: simo <>
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 03:40:53 -0500

On Sat, 2006-03-11 at 16:21 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>     simo> It's not a kind of further restriction IMO.
> If it's not a restriction, they should take it out of the license,
> because it's meaningless.  Or show how it is a consequence of other
> terms in the license, thus clarifying both the intent and meaning of
> those other terms.

The intent and meaning is explained very clearly in the rationale
document. There are some stupid laws that declare something to be an
"effective technological protection" where it is clear not to any expert
in the matter, as they can easily be circumvented, all the more when the
source code is public. The GPLv3 just states the obvious so that bogus
laws cannot be used to prohibit to change GPLv3 programs.

It does not mean you can't create some program, at all.

> I think it's intended as a restriction.

And the rationale clearly states what it means, you may not like it, but
at least you may try to document yourself. You generally do much better
on other arguments for what I could see in past years.

>     simo> Well, if you want to play with words you're free to do it
>     simo> all you want, I think you and others understood perfectly
>     simo> what I meant an what was my point. :-)
> I understand what you think your point is; my point is that it depends
> on a contradiction prima facie.  If you want to be taken seriously by
> those who *don't* drink your Kool-Aid---and isn't that what we're all
> here for?---you need to present definitions that are internally
> consistent.

I am not here to discuss definitions about things that are very well
understood worldwide, a proprietary license is generally referred to any
license that is a non-free software license.

>     simo> Well let me decide whether my opinions stand correct or
>     simo> not. Personally, as a GNU GPL user, I welcome the v3
>     simo> provisions. They defend my rights against thieves as I call
>     simo> people that try all the way to use my works by trying to
>     simo> circumvent the license I choose.
> "Your" works?  Why, you're starting to sound like a proprietor!

No, I am a right holder, there is a difference. Property is about
physical things, for immaterial things we generally speak of rights.

> Of course, I consider that a perfectly valid reason to use the GPL, or
> GPLv3: because you want to enforce your will with respect to your
> creations.
>     simo> [DRMs] are effective in denying freedom to the vast majority
>     simo> of users.
> You simply don't know that.  It's quite possible that the vast
> majority of users would freely choose to submit to such restrictions,
> if the alternative were that they had to give up their Windows and Mac
> boxes and use Linux instead.  In fact, if you believe that
> representative democracy means anything at all, in the U.S. they did.

How you can derive any opinion of mine about democracy from the phrase
above mentioned is a mystery to me. If you think you can make your
points by trying to attack me personally feel free to do that alone, I'm
not going to argue with someone that is not able to maintain calm in a
rational discussion, next time you will call me a bloody communist.

Freely choosing to enter a jail doesn't mean your stay free, and sooner
or letter you will get to regret the decision you made.

As an U.S. president said once: "Those who deny freedom to others
deserve it not for themselves". He must have had disbelief in
representative democracy too ...

> And after all, they are free to choose GNU versions of (much of) the
> software they'd like to use, unencumbered by DRM.

Unless the hardware make them impossible to run such software, but this
is another argument, and we are getting probably way out of topic.
I consider the thread closed.