On 5/20/08, Kurt H Maier <karmaflux_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Matthias Kirschner <mk_AT_fsfe.org> wrote:
> > Why do you think a user who gets DWM in a binary on some device knows a)
> > that this is DWM and b) knows that DWM is licensed under MIT? So this
> > user does not have the freedom to use, study, share and improve the
> > software.
>
>
> You think their ability to hack on dwm is destroyed by the fact that
> they can't identify it as dwm?
>
> I don't see how this follows. Googling "tiling window manager" turns
> up a ton of results, most of which are descended from dwm.
>
>
> --
>
> # Kurt H Maier
>
>
Perfectly right. Even such closed source adds up, but does not
destroys the original software. It even gives a bigger choice to the
user. More freedom in this sense.
Received on Tue May 20 2008 - 16:31:05 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Jul 13 2008 - 15:42:17 UTC