| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
The GPLv3 draft does not impose any use restrictions -- it imposes *modification* restrictions.The GPLv3 draft does not impose any use restrictions -- it imposes *modification* restrictions.Posted Sep 27, 2006 14:50 UTC (Wed) by JoeF (subscriber, #4486)In reply to: The GPLv3 draft does not impose any use restrictions -- it imposes *modification* restrictions. by xoddam Parent article: Some GPLv3 clarifications from the FSF What copyright *can* impose is a restriction on your right to modify the work, so if the code you received implements a certain feature, the licence may prohibit you from removing it. The GPL does contain such a restriction (clause 2c of version 2, or 5c of the draft of version 3)
That applies to distribution, as the first sentence of section2 states: "You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications"
"b) why do some people feel the need to argue for it with their personal ethics?" Well, I was referring to somebody else in this thread who accused me of being unethical. Anyway, I stand by my position that this would be a use restriction which does not belong in an Open Source license.
(Log in to post comments)
The GPLv3 draft does not impose any use restrictions -- it imposes *modification* restrictions. Posted Sep 27, 2006 15:09 UTC (Wed) by Jel (guest, #22988) [Link] The GPL is not an open source license, it's a free software license.
The GPLv3 draft does not impose any use restrictions -- it imposes *modification* restrictions. Posted Sep 27, 2006 15:32 UTC (Wed) by JoeF (subscriber, #4486) [Link] The GPLv2, yes. GPLv3 is not a free software license, because it restricts the use. Unless you define free as in "free beer".
The GPLv3 draft does not impose any use restrictions -- it imposes *modification* restrictions. Posted Sep 27, 2006 15:42 UTC (Wed) by Jel (guest, #22988) [Link] *sigh* Well, we're going around in circles here. Again, we'll have toagree to disagree I guess. Sorry we couldn't find more common ground.
The GPLv3 draft does not impose any use restrictions -- it imposes *modification* restrictions. Posted Sep 27, 2006 16:02 UTC (Wed) by JoeF (subscriber, #4486) [Link] Well, if you had better arguments than accusing me of being unethical...A license that restricts my use of a software is not free. Proprietary licenses restrict my freedom to use the software any way I want. A free license should not do that, or it ceases to be free.
The GPLv3 draft does not impose any use restrictions -- it imposes *modification* restrictions. Posted Sep 27, 2006 16:13 UTC (Wed) by Jel (guest, #22988) [Link] I didn't accuse you of being unethical. I said that the position you'retaking on this issue is unethical. There's a difference. One is an attack against you, whilst the other is just an analysis of an issue, which you will not take personally if you're objective. As for the quality of my argument... the burden of proof is on you; you're the one claiming that GPLv3 is somehow different from GPLv2, despite the authors saying that it's a logical continuation, and me agreeing with them. Anyway, without wanting to cause offense, I don't find this discussion very interesting, so I'm going to leave it here.
The GPLv3 draft does not impose any use restrictions -- it imposes *modification* restrictions. Posted Sep 27, 2006 17:16 UTC (Wed) by JoeF (subscriber, #4486) [Link] Well, your analysis of the issue is deeply flawed, then.The issue is if the GPLv3 would restrict the use of a GPLed program. And it seems that it does. That makes the current GPLv3 draft unfree. I am sorry if you are unable to see that.
The GPLv3 draft does not impose any use restrictions -- it imposes *modification* restrictions. Posted Sep 27, 2006 17:39 UTC (Wed) by Jel (guest, #22988) [Link] Well, again, I disagree, and stand by my points. Take them or leavethem.
The GPLv3 does not contain the Affero clause Posted Sep 28, 2006 1:12 UTC (Thu) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] Wrong on two counts.
1. Neither version of the GPL contains any restriction on your right to
2. The GPLv2 and GPLv3 contain essentially the same restrictions on
The GPLv3 does not contain the Affero clause and does not restrict
What it does do is *permit* a downstream redistributor to *add* an
The GPLv3 does not contain the Affero clause Posted Sep 28, 2006 1:39 UTC (Thu) by JoeF (subscriber, #4486) [Link] Modification is not "use".Why not? I see this claim, which I consider wrong. I have the source code, and I have the freedom to do with the source code as I please. The GPLv2 covers copyright, i.e., the right to copy the code. The current GPLv3 draft tries to limit what I can do with the code in the privacy of my own home. That's fundamentally wrong, if you value your freedom.
The GPLv3 does point out that your unlimited right to use
the software applies to the *unmodified* version you received
The GPLv3 does not contain the Affero clause
The GPLv3 permits essentially the same modifications as the GPLv2 Posted Sep 28, 2006 2:22 UTC (Thu) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] > The GPLv2 covers copyright, i.e., the right to copy the code.
The GPLv2 covers whatever copyright law covers in your country, including
> The current GPLv3 draft tries to limit what I can do with the
The GPLv3 draft DOES NOT DIFFER from the GPLv2 in the essentials of the
If you want to do it in a more public fashion, eg. by running a public
> > The GPLv3 does point out that your unlimited right to
> Yes. And that is where one of the "4 freedoms" is removed.
I'm sure you have a point here, but I'm not sure how it applies to
The Affero licence -- by relying heavily on the limited permission to
from your other reply:
I suggested you might have more fun playing with some other kids and you
The GPLv3 permits essentially the same modifications as the GPLv2 Posted Sep 28, 2006 4:28 UTC (Thu) by JoeF (subscriber, #4486) [Link] The GPLv3 draft DOES NOT DIFFER from the GPLv2 in the essentials of the permission it grants to modify.Oh, that "essentials" is such a good legal term. Is that all you can come up with?
I suggested you might have more fun playing with some other kids and you
called me a nasty name. I'm telling Teacher now.
That's all, folks Posted Sep 28, 2006 6:35 UTC (Thu) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] > Oh, that "essentials" is such a good legal term.> Is that all you can come up with?
Real lawyers are thin on the ground here, you're in the wrong place if
Nor had I read the licences as closely as I should have before
That's all, folks Posted Sep 28, 2006 8:17 UTC (Thu) by JoeF (subscriber, #4486) [Link] I don't need your help to "decipher" legalese. I can do so much better on my own, thank you very much.And indeed, your attempt to decipher legalese has led you to some wrong conclusions. Instead of recognizing that, you lash out at people who may have a better grasp of it (while I am not a lawyer, I deal with US-style legalese pretty much daily, and I even somewhat enjoy it.) Fact is and remains that the current GPLv3 draft would restrict my freedoms to use GPLed software. No amount of insults like calling my position "unethical" changes that. On the contrary, I consider it unethical to call opposing viewpoints unethical. Nobody who actually is interested in a real discussion would do that. Only people who want to avoid discussion could even come up with the idea to call other viewpoints "unethical". Granted, it wasn't you who hurled that insult, but your posts were only marginally more civil, with your (paraphrased) "it's the GPL way or the highway." That's hubris and arrogance, and if you become arrogant, you end up being just another Microsoft. I use the GPLv2 in my own software because I value the freedoms it provides. And that includes the freedom to use GPLv2-licensed software any way I like, provided I don't distribute it. And using it in a Web service is not distributing it. It is "using" it, modifications of the source or not. It is not a distribution of the work in any sense of the word. I do not wish to be told by anybody, not even RMS, that these freedoms are all of a sudden not all that important, and that RMS and the FSF know what's best for me. Of course, the FSF can take these freedoms away in the GPLv3, that's their prerogative. But then it's not a free license anymore, not in the sense that RMS has been going around for years talking about freedom.
That's all, folks Posted Sep 30, 2006 22:04 UTC (Sat) by h2 (guest, #27965) [Link] xoddam, your posts have been consistently informative and well thought out. As well as coherent. Thanks.
The fact that other people are not able, or willing, to match your level will hopefully not dissuade you from continuing to post. Since this type of non-discourse is a given in any public forum, all I can do is thank you for the patience you've shown to others who clearly do not grasp the question nearly as well as you do, which is personally more than I would have been able to do.
|
|
||||||||||||