<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
* simo wrote, On 22/11/07 16:07:
<blockquote cite="mid:1195747663.15342.189.camel@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 15:24 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">* simo wrote, On 22/11/07 15:11:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Ciaran, you fell in Mj Ray's trap with both feet.
You are confusing restrictions with requirements.
GPLv3 added new requirements not new restrictions from my POV.
Of course any requirements can be spelt as a restriction from the point
of view of the distributor, but the point of view of the GPL is to
protect *user*'s freedom not distributors freedom.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">With this meaning of "user" (as it pertains to the point of view of
the GPL) _one_ of the users freedoms is to distribute, or therefore a
distributor is a user in that sense.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
This is your interpretation which I reject. Even for copyright law use
and distribution are 2 different things. When you say *use* in the
context of a license you have to use the copyright meaning not the
everyday meaning, as every day meaning is broad and general.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Funny, I used the philosophical GPL meaning, as you seemed to indicate
you were:<br>
"but the point of view of the GPL is to protect *user*'s freedom not
distributors freedom"<br>
<br>
And lets look at the front page: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.gnu.org/">http://www.gnu.org/</a><br>
<br>
"Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy,
distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely,
it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software"<br>
<br>
You can reject my interpretation and I expect you will also supply an
explanation of how you are not also rejecting the FSF interpretation<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1195747663.15342.189.camel@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Because of this I don't think we can say "the point of view of the GPL
is to protect non-distributing *users* freedom" because such a
statement contradicts the idea of the freedoms.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Users are users, there are no "non-distributing users", or "distributing
users".
</pre>
</blockquote>
Surely *this* is heresy? Distribution is one of the freedoms the GPL
guarantees to users.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1195747663.15342.189.camel@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
There are users and distributors. The fact that someone can be in both
categories at once, is not relevant.
</pre>
</blockquote>
It is from a GPL philosophical point of view.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1195747663.15342.189.camel@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""></pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">And so I don't know what you mean by what you said.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Cause you should stop mixing common use terms with technical terms.
</pre>
</blockquote>
You were the one who placed the scope on the word user:<br>
"but the point of view of the GPL is to protect *user*'s freedom not
distributors freedom"<br>
<br>
And yet.... if I misunderstood what you meant by user, please explain,
because in any case as I said it doesn't make any sense however you
look at it.<br>
<br>
Sam
</body>
</html>