Re: Breaking the law vs breaking a license agreement
> I think that source code is speech.
> Rejecting somebody else arguments is
> natural, but refusing to talk with
> someone just for ideological reasons is
> recipy for disaster.
So you're against any form of embargo and boycott ?
I'm against embargo for a whole country, but boycott is OK.
As someone mentioned above, this is not only a technical problem, but about human beings. You can't always hide behind the technic.
In France during WWII, we had some people that worked for the Vichy government and applied the laws of this government. But after the war they have been judged for that, because the laws they applied were against the Human Rights.
IMO that proves that you always have to be concerned about what you're doing and the possible consequences. When you code something and make it public, they is much more implied than just publishing the code. And it would be nice if coders (scientists in general also) would be more aware of that.
> > Anyway I don't think the problem
> about the code
> > (which is mostly about technical
> matters), but about the use of
> > the code. In this case, the coder is
> implied, but a
> > license agreement could help.
> Free software is about sharing
> advancements in computer science.
Yes, but not only. The GPL forces people to continue working with GPL (that's not what I call being free). It has nothing to do with computer science.
Re: Code ownership...
> I am talking about freedom of speech
> and thought.
> Do you really consider ideas to be
Yep, a lot ! But of course, that's only philosphy.
Free software is one of the best one.