Re: Is forcing "upstream" distribution really OK for free software?

[Barry Margolin]

In article <cunr7rn103h.fsf@zero-based.org>,
 Martin Dickopp <expires-2004-08-31@zero-based.org> wrote:

> Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> 
> > In article <mailman.145.1089234860.22971.gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org>,
> >  Rui Miguel Seabra <rms@1407.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 2004-07-07 at 15:49 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> >> > The FSF appeared to make the same point in the
> >> > section "Central Control" of their comments on APSL 1
> >> > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/historical-apsl.html However, the
> >> > page http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html had a comment that
> >> > requiring distribution to the original developer if asked is OK. This
> >> > seems inconsistent.
> >> 
> >> > What have I not understood? What is the flaw in the test? Is there
> >> > external reasoning for the FSD page? References fine. Thanks in advance
> >> > for your time.
> >> 
> >> Notice the difference between forcing to send upstream, and sending if
> >> asked.
> >
> > I think the OP's point is that anything that *requires* redistribution 
> > is against the GPL.  Even redistribution back to the original developer.  
> 
> I don't think the OP was talking about the GPL specifically.  As I
> understood him, he was asking the philosophical question whether forced
> redistribution is acceptable for Free Software, or rather what the
> position of the FSF/GNU project on this question is.

I assume the FSF's position is mirrored in the GPL.  A license that 
requires that you obey the original developer's request to send changes 
back to him is not compatible with the GPL, so I don't think it 
corresponds to the FSF's philosophy.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***