GPL License with clause for Web use?

Sam Liddicott sam at
Thu Nov 22 16:17:06 UTC 2007

* 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:

"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

>> 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.
> 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.
>> 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"

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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Discussion mailing list