GPL License with clause for Web use?

[Sam Liddicott]

* 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20071122/56c59672/attachment.html>