Re: Freedom to take freedom (was Re: [Fsfe-uk] Accountants need MS...)

[MJ Ray]

> From address@hidden Tue Jan 22 11:49:57 2008
> From: Lee Braiden <address@hidden>
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Freedom to take freedom (was Re: [Fsfe-uk] Accountants need MS...)
> Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:52:50 +0000
> Message-Id: <address@hidden>
> X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 1)
> X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 06:44:33 -0500
> X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
> List-Id: Free Software and the United Kingdom <fsfe-uk.gnu.org>
> Sender: address@hidden
>
> On Monday 21 January 2008 21:31:03 Dave Crossland wrote:
> > Debian rejected them because Red Hat made a RETARDED additional
> > anti-tivoisation restriction. But this is a lot better than non-free
> > Microsoft fonts.
>
> You know... with most things in the free software movement, I'm right there, 
> in total agreement with Stallman and the FSFE and all.  Sometimes I wonder 
> though... if we agree in principle that some freedoms (such as the freedom to 
> enslave) should not be given, on the basis that they take freedom from 
> others... then why do we flat-out reject additional restrictions?

Do we flat-out reject additional restrictions?  As I understand
the emails from Dave Crossland, it's that Red Hat used the GPLv2
(which forbids additional restrictions) and then contradicted it
by adding one, leaving others with no valid licence.  Basic error.
I didn't think additional restrictions were a problem themselves.

Hope that's right,
-- 
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/