license

[Terry Hancock]

Arthur wrote:
> I am curious why Terry is so adamant that it is not. That my suggestion is
> even impertinent.

Because you are talking about use restrictions, not redistribution. There's 
no license issues at all. If I write code that patches an existing 
distribution and then redistribute the result, then there can be a license 
issue (but if there is, the license is no longer Free -- allowing modified 
redistribution is the most basic definition of Free software).

Also, Free software should specifically disclaim warranty, so there's no 
guarantee on that front either.  Strictly caveat emptor. And as long as you 
aren't paying for it, I think that's perfectly fair. In fact, I think that 
if you didn't pay for the work that a lack of warranty should be implicit 
even without a disclaimer.  But as the law stands, your attitude proves to 
me the importance of using such disclaimers.

Why am I adamant? Because you are proposing to mount a legal attack on a 
developer for creating Free software. I can think of no more effective way 
to chill development than if such a precedent were somehow to succeed 
(fortunately, I feel confident that it would not).

You may not like how that developer's package works.  I personally agree 
with your opinion on the design issue (at least as far as I understand you 
-- I haven't seen the rebuttal, only your statement that you didn't 
understand it, which is hardly a strong case). But as I posted, you already 
have perfectly adequate remedies for it:

* Use somebody else's package if there is one.

* Make your own replacement (by patching or forking if possible).

You're entitled to your aesthetics, but you have no right to force them on 
other people. Like I said -- if you don't like it, don't use it!  If you 
want to start a campaign to get other people not to use it, fine.  But why 
should you have any legal right to *enforce* coding standards on other 
people?

Politely persuading the other party is perfectly reasonable, of course, but 
if no agreement can be reached, then that's just tough cookies. See the 
remedies above.  Suing him isn't one of them, and I think that's exactly 
the way it should be.

Yes, I certainly find that impertinent. Impertinent, oppressive, 
controlling, litigious, and totally and completely opposed to Freedom. And 
I guess in my book, that's pretty nearly a description of Perfect Evil.  
Those are my values, and I don't plan on changing them to accomodate you.

Sorry to be rigid, but intolerance is the one thing I cannot tolerate.

Terry

-- 
Anansi Spaceworks
http://www.anansispaceworks.com