* simo wrote, On 22/11/07 16:42: 
On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 16:17 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
  
* simo wrote, On 22/11/07 16:07: 
    
On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 15:24 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
  
      
* simo wrote, On 22/11/07 15:11: 
    
        
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.  
      
          
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.
    
        
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.
  
      
Funny, I used the philosophical GPL meaning, as you seemed to indicate
you were:
"but the point of view of the GPL is to protect *user*'s freedom not
distributors freedom"

And lets look at the front page: http://www.gnu.org/

"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"

You can reject my interpretation and I expect you will also supply an
explanation of how you are not also rejecting the FSF interpretation
    

Sorry I don't see the contradiction.
I know, but I did, however you explained below. 

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.
    
        
Users are users, there are no "non-distributing users", or "distributing
users".
  
      
Surely *this* is heresy? Distribution is one of the freedoms the GPL
guarantees to users.
    

Again you mix roles.
*Users* are free to distribute, The moment they distribute, they become
*also* distributor. In the role of *distributors*, they have to fulfill
requirements.
Unless they are using the AGPL? Then a user has requirements too?
The license is clear, *mere use* does not require you to accept terms.
But if you want to *distribute* things matters change, you *now* have to
fulfill requirements.
except with the AGPL?

There are users and distributors. The fact that someone can be in both
categories at once, is not relevant.

  
      
It is from a GPL philosophical point of view.
    

Philosophy is not legally binding. And you are confusing what a license
can do with what you wish it could do.
No I am not, I am confusing what (you* meant by "user" because you scoped the word user with the "point of view of the GPL"

You have explained yourself, but I reserve to say what confused me.
[deleted]
  
And so I don't know what you mean by what you said.
    
        
Cause you should stop mixing common use terms with technical terms.

  
      
You were the one who placed the scope on the word user:
"but the point of view of the GPL is to protect *user*'s freedom not
distributors freedom"
    

Exactly. I used user in a specific way, not in a generic way.
whatever
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.
    

Sorry, I can't be more explicit than this, what I know of law is self
taught and just good enough to let me grasp (I hope) basics, not enough
to clearly explain to a layman with adequate words (and English not
being my main language makes that even more difficult).
Well you seemed certain enough that what you said wasn't confusing to a native english speaker, even though I am a native english speaker and I said clearly that I was confused and showed where and how.
But you have to understand that a license is a legal document, therefore
you have to read it keeping in mind the legal framework and language.
It was merely YOUR use of the word USER that was puzzling.

I understand that license and that is WHY it concerns me.
If you keep thinking about the GPL as something else, well, bad luck, no
wonder you will keep finding it difficult to understand the language and
the requirements, and who is the recipient of such requirements.
I think it is the language of a non-native english-speaker I was having difficulty understanding.

Sam