GPL License with clause for Web use?

[Sam Liddicott]

* simo wrote, On 22/11/07 15:11:
> On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 14:33 +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
>   
>> MJ Ray <mjr at phonecoop.coop> writes:
>>     
>>>> This looks like a mistake in categories.html.  I'll mail FSF about this.
>>>>         
>>> Rather, it's a mistake in GPLv3 *iff* it should be a strong copyleft.
>>>       
>> That's only true if the core value of copyleft is that no more requirements
>> can be added.
>>
>> I've always thought that preserving the four freedoms for downstream users
>> was the core value of copyleft.  And I think the GNU project have made this
>> clear over and over again.
>>
>> Banning additional restrictions was a means to protecting the four freedoms.
>> In the GPLv3 process, it was realised that strict adherence to this was not
>> necessary to protect the four freedoms and that a bit of flexibility can
>> solve some licence incompatibility issues.
>>     
>
> 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.

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.

And so I don't know what you mean by what you said.
>   
>>> FSF changing its basic guidance to create retrospective continuity is
>>> the wrong way to fix this,
>>>       
>> You're saying that mistakes on webpages should be obeyed forever? 
>>     
>
> Mj Ray is playing rhetorical tricks here.
> Nothing more effective that someone bitter that try to find faults at
> all costs and is confrontational.
>   
If this is true, Ciaran has the correct response, which is to inform
rather than dismiss _valid_ questions on the grounds of suspected intention.

Even if the questioner is not genuine (and I think he is and so am I)
the questions may be held by others who are genuine, and proper
consideration may still strengthen the official position.

Sam
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20071122/b7c6c724/attachment.html>