GPL License with clause for Web use?

[simo]

On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 15:28 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> simo <simo.sorce at xsec.it> wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> User and distributor are not two distinct or identical groups with
> free software.

And how that matters?

If I own a shop, and but from my own shop, does it matter if I own it?
Consumer, tax and other laws apply even to what I sell myself in that
case. Both and separately as a consumer and as a vendor.
When you talk legal matter the role you play is important.

When you tal 4 freedoms the recipient is important. The role of
distributor has to obey the requirements. The users enjoys the freedoms.

The distinction is all there in the license in any part of it.

> [...]
> > Mj Ray is playing rhetorical tricks here.
> > Nothing more effective that someone bitter that try to find faults at
> > all costs and is confrontational.
> 
> Simo is playing the man, not the ball here.
> 
> But then, I am a bit bitter that FSF's hypocrisy in updating their
> basic texts to match their leaders' actions isn't more widely-known
> when me and my projects get such a bad press from FSF supporters.

I play man, and you?
You keep trying to find FSF at fault, you are biased, and you do not
recognized humans can commit errors. The FSF is made of humans not
machines. That said I never found the FSF betray the core values or
change "the scriptures" to match leaders positions. I see that only in
the words of their detractors.

> What long-time supporter wouldn't get a bit fed up with the original
> proponent endlessly rewriting its own core beliefs?  How can we build
> stable shared alliances if the common ground keeps getting moved
> without agreement?

Only a person that believe in a slightly different set of core values
can think that FSF core values change. You think you "know" perfectly
what are the core values, and as soon as your very strict expectations
do not match reality you blame the FSF for shifting. Many do this in
fact.
But many others don't see this shift, so you are either claiming that
*you* are the holder of the truth or that these other people are part of
a conspiracy to change FSF core values.
I don't believe in large scale conspiracies, so I think you have to
think harder, because IMO you are at fault here.

> I don't mean to be confrontational, but sometimes I'm at a loss of any
> other way to highlight FSF use of tactics like lock-out, ret-con,
> hair-splitting, and so on.
> 
> Hope that explains,

No need to explain, this was evident. Unfortunately, nobody can change
your beliefs, because beliefs are not facts. It's like religion and
sects, every single one think *they* own the *truth* and the others are
shifting the core values because they were lured by the devil,
Clear tracts of radicalism and extremism, luckily they seldom win.

Simo.