Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now, what if I played it through my web server? I don't give you
the DVD and I don't let you access the menu directly, so I am not
distributing the work through the web, I'm just playing a video
using some streaming video format. Now that is clearly
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But I'm not yet clear what your argument for that is. On the face
of it, attaching it to use makes more sense, since who the
possessor of a copy is is really a technical detail that can be
changed or
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But I'm not yet clear what your argument for that is. On the face
of it, attaching it to use makes more sense, since who the
possessor of a copy is is
On Thursday 13 March 2003 03:56 pm, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My understanding (IANAL, etc) is that public performance could cover
this sort of thing (the problem would be scaling it back to cover only
what we want it to). Are you simply objecting
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 05:37:18AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 04:37:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Allow me to propose the What if Microsoft Did It test. Microsoft
creates a new program, and says you are prohibited from running this
program behind a web
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 20:21, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here, I think Apache is closer to router software than to PHPNuke.
PHPNuke is distinguishable because it's not designed to do some standard
thing
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 10:26:44AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
The idea is that, before I make the software available in any way, I
should be able to decide who should get access and who should not.
And that list need not include the author.
Rather,
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 10:26:44AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
The idea is that, before I make the software available in any way,
I should be able to decide who should get access and who should
not. And that list need not include the author.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
When I say you're a user of router software, I'm not pushing the
definition of user any further than you are when you say I'm a user of
PHP-nuke or Apache.
Well, we disagree then. I admit that in some sense I'm using the
router on my local subnet
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But you still haven't answered my question: *IF* it could be done (and
passed the other two tests I mentioned in my other message), would it
be free?
No. It wouldn't because freedom means, at its
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen)
What happens twenty years from now, when Transmeta-style reconfiguring
processors are everywhere, and I'm not so much running emacs as I am
rebuilding my computer into a fixed machine which implements emacs?
This particular problem, if any, is one
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But I'm not yet clear what your argument for that is. On the face of
it, attaching it to use makes more sense, since who the possessor of a
copy is is really a technical detail that can be changed or made
unclear via technical means (e.g., ASP).
The
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 04:47:56PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
I don't understand this question. Having access to the source is
necessary if you want to make changes. Examples of dentists' software
aren't relevant (unless you're a dentist), because that'd be outside
of the sort of use we
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:27:44PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Basically, as far as I can see, the dissident test is exactly equivalent
to saying we don't want to close this ASP loophole thing.
I don't think this is true, if you accept the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
The point is that the alleged user, even if he has the source to
what's behind the web page, *can't* change it, because it's on a
computer beyond his control, on the other side of that connection.
Giving him the source does *NOT* make it
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Well, dissidents supposedly want to be able to keep their changes
private to a small group from among all the people who have any knowledge
of their software. ASP folks want to keep their software private to
themselves.
Yes, dissidents want to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is it users of programs or owners of copies of programs that should
have freedom? As far as I can see the answer is clearly users.
Currently those two groups are roughly the same, and the second
group is
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Of course, there are cases of web apps that can be run just as well
on my local webserver, but I think they're a small minority. (It's
this group that you're describing in your other examples, but I
think it's the less significant category.)
The
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
The point is that the alleged user, even if he has the source to
what's behind the web page, *can't* change it, because it's on a
computer beyond his control, on the other side of that connection.
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 10:26:44AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
The idea is that, before I make the software available in any way, I
should be able to decide who should get access and who should not.
And that list need not include the author.
Rather, you should be able to decide who *you* give
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 10:26:44AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
The idea is that, before I make the software available in any way, I
should be able to decide who should get access and who should not.
And that list need not include the author.
Uh, why, exactly? How is that different than saying
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 05:47:21AM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
But that's exactly the error we reprimand legislators and businesses
for: believing that a different medium requires new laws to make it
safe. That I receive the output of software over HTTP should change
nothing from the cases
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is it users of programs or owners of copies of programs that should
have freedom? As far as I can see the answer is clearly users.
Currently those two groups are
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 11:58, Steve Langasek wrote:
I find this an acceptable compromise. The GPL already implements
something very close to this: if you give someone a copy, they're able
to pass it on to a third party who in some cases then has grounds for
demanding source from the author.
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But you still haven't answered my question: *IF* it could be done (and
passed the other two tests I mentioned in my other message), would it
be free?
No. It wouldn't because freedom means, at its root, the absence of
restrictions. The fact that
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
The idea is that:
(a) gcc -o foo foo.o bar-gpl.o forms a work (foo) based on bar-gpl.o
and thus that people should make the full source of foo available
(b) gcc -o foo foo.o -lbar-gpl is much the same as the above
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 12:00, Anthony Towns wrote:
Software licenses are, almost by definition, the author placing
obligations on everyone.
Or removing them, in the case of Free Software licenses.
--
-Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668
On matters of style, swim with the
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 11:58, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Only when you're playing the game of trying to push the definition of
user as far as you can push it. And that's a perfectly legitimate
and good thing to do when you're discussing a license text, but in
doing so you shouldn't forget
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 14:51, Stephen Ryan wrote:
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 11:58, Steve Langasek wrote:
I find this an acceptable compromise. The GPL already implements
something very close to this: if you give someone a copy, they're able
to pass it on to a third party who in some cases
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 12:00, Anthony Towns wrote:
Software licenses are, almost by definition, the author placing
obligations on everyone.
Or removing them, in the case of Free Software licenses.
Hah. Forced publication requirements *remove* no
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 04:45:02PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Software licenses are, almost by definition, the author placing
obligations on everyone.
Or removing them, in the case of Free Software licenses.
The GPL places lots of obligations on people in the interests of preserving
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 11:58, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
When I say you're a user of router software, I'm not pushing the
definition of user any further than you are when you say I'm a user of
PHP-nuke or Apache.
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote:
Here, I think Apache is closer to
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here, I think Apache is closer to router software than to PHPNuke.
PHPNuke is distinguishable because it's not designed to do some standard
thing -- instead, users choose to visit PHPNuke sites in part because
of their specific, unique features.
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 17:59, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 12:00, Anthony Towns wrote:
Software licenses are, almost by definition, the author placing
obligations on everyone.
Or removing them, in the case of Free Software
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 20:21, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
David Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here, I think Apache is closer to router software than to PHPNuke.
PHPNuke is distinguishable because it's not designed to do some standard
thing -- instead, users choose to visit PHPNuke
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 10:53:13PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
The GPL places lots of obligations on people in the interests of
preserving people's freedom. Placing obligations isn't equivalent
to reducing freedom (though they often coincide, and we should be
skeptical about obligations
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
This detailed wrangling is really missing the point that I'm interested
in, though. Is there a _fundamental_ difficulty with such licenses?
Is it users of programs or owners of copies of programs that should
have freedom? As far as I can see the
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is it users of programs or owners of copies of programs that should
have freedom? As far as I can see the answer is clearly users.
Currently those two groups are roughly the same, and the second group
is *much* easier to draw a line around. So we use
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What about my list of software that I am a user of? The software my
dentist uses to track patient records? The software the University
uses to track my grades? The software that Congress uses to track
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 12:25:02PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
[ more good argument snipped]
Even if there were *no* legal limitations of any kind on the copying
and modification of any software, there would *still* be no way to
give that liberty to users, since (when user and
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
This detailed wrangling is really missing the point that I'm interested
in, though. Is there a _fundamental_ difficulty with such licenses?
Is it users of programs or owners of copies of programs that
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 03:53:31PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Free software preserves the possessor's legal liberty to change the
software, something that only legal limitation was previously blocking
him in. But forced publication at all: how does this increase the
user's liberty to
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Free software preserves the possessor's legal liberty to change the
software, something that only legal limitation was previously blocking
him in. But forced publication at all: how does this increase the
user's liberty to change the software?
43 matches
Mail list logo
