| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
beg to differbeg to differPosted Sep 26, 2006 21:11 UTC (Tue) by Jel (guest, #22988)In reply to: beg to differ by JoeF Parent article: Some GPLv3 clarifications from the FSF
GPLv2 AND v3 are both about ensuring freedoms, not restricting use. They
(Log in to post comments)
beg to differ Posted Sep 26, 2006 22:45 UTC (Tue) by JoeF (subscriber, #4486) [Link] If you can't use a GPL3-version of a program on a website without giving people the source, then it is a use restriction.With GPLv2, you can modify sources as much as you want without giving out the source, as long as you don't distribute the code. That's a big difference. GPLv2 does not put restrictions on the use, it puts restrictions on the distribution only.
beg to differ Posted Sep 26, 2006 23:28 UTC (Tue) by Jel (guest, #22988) [Link] The intention with GPLv2 is that you can use the code INTERNALLY, in yourown organisation, without giving out the code. Again, the "restrictions" of the GPL are restrictions AGAINST restricting freedom. The freedom to enslave people is not a freedom that most ethical people miss. The GPL simply stands up for such ethics, and makes sure that people are not enslaved, by guaranteeing technological freedom via restrictions in line with those ethics. You can argue that you'd like the restrictions removed, but I'm afraid you will then be taking an unethical stance that I have no interest in.
beg to differ Posted Sep 27, 2006 0:25 UTC (Wed) by JoeF (subscriber, #4486) [Link] Nope. That is what you may think.The fact is that the GPLv2 restricts distribution. Use, be it internal or external, is not restricted. Again, the GPLv3 restricts the use, and therefore goes against the freedom you so stress. The GPLv3 restricts the freedom to use an application. Plain and simple. And that is bad. And I would appreciate if you stopped accusing me of being unethical. It is you who is completely out of line with your slavery comparison. If I would use your line of "argument", I would have to argue that the GPLv3 enslaves people, by restricting the use of software. What is next, restricting the use of GPLed software in stem-cell research, because that goes against the ethics of some people? Keep your political stand out of software licenses.
beg to differ Posted Sep 27, 2006 9:07 UTC (Wed) by Jel (guest, #22988) [Link] Well then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
affero clause Posted Sep 27, 2006 4:55 UTC (Wed) by sanjoy (subscriber, #5026) [Link] If you can't use a GPL3-version of a program on a website without giving people the source, then it is a use restriction. The so-called Affero restriction is a modification restriction. If you get a program subject to the Affero restrction, you are free to run the program as you received it. If the program is a web service and makes its source available to users, then when you run it, it would do the same. You cannot remove those facilities, so your right of modification is restricted. If the program is not a web service, but you turn it into one, then you have to make sure that you include "get the source" facilities. That's also a modification restriction: "You are free to modify it so long as you...". --Sanjoy Mahajan
affero clause Posted Sep 27, 2006 6:27 UTC (Wed) by JoeF (subscriber, #4486) [Link] Even as a modification restriction, it restricts the freedom more than the GPLv2.And modification is a case of use. I can use a GPLv2 program any way I want, including modifying it in any way I want.
modification restrictions in GPLv2 Posted Sep 27, 2006 9:07 UTC (Wed) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] > I can use a GPLv2 program any way I want, including> modifying it in any way I want.
No, you can't. Reread section 2.
modification restrictions in GPLv2 Posted Sep 27, 2006 14:36 UTC (Wed) by JoeF (subscriber, #4486) [Link] That section talks about "copy and distribute" modifications. Thanks for making my point.
modification restrictions in GPLv2 and the Affero clause Posted Sep 28, 2006 1:01 UTC (Thu) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] You are correct; section 2 of the GPLv2 doesn't emphasise the fact thatmodification is also covered by the licence. Basically for most classes of software if your modification is kept private no-one is going to know or care. But in most countries you simply don't have the right to modify the code except as the licence permits (and except, in a few countries, for fair use rights, as Dan J "you don't need a licence" Bernstein of qmail fame insists: http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html).
It was the original choice of the FSF not to make too big a beef about
The Affero clause is an equivalent restriction, prohibiting removal of a
The fundamental difference is not in the way the licence or copyright law
An attempt to enforce clause 2c of the GPLv2 against modifications to
> Thanks for making my point.
The point I have made is that modification restrictions in the GPL have
Somehow I don't think this is the same as the point that you think I've
It has long been argued and agreed that BSD- and MIT-style licences
If you wish, now that you understand that the monopoly granted by
modification restrictions in GPLv2 and the Affero clause Posted Sep 28, 2006 1:33 UTC (Thu) by JoeF (subscriber, #4486) [Link] Your last sentence is of course one of the things that I have come to expect from zealots.It is the GPL way or the highway... Guess what, this elitist attitude is what will be the GPLs downfall. Sad to see that GPL "defenders" are indeed on the same level as the average religious nut case.
|
|
||||||||||||