GPL License with clause for Web use?

[simo]

On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 15:24 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
> * 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.

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.

> 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".

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

> And so I don't know what you mean by what you said.

Cause you should stop mixing common use terms with technical terms.

> > > > 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.

No questions.

> 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.

In fact Ciaran wnet the right route and asked for correction without
arguing about the implied accusations of Mj Ray, kudos to Ciaran.

Simo.