On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 01:07:14PM -0700, Jon wrote: > Nick Wiltshire wrote: > >>From the GPL: > > That was pretty succinct, yup. In my mind that only leaves one question: > are those who wish to do things that *are* covered by the GPL still "users"?
Yes, but are they 'end users'? I assume that most modifications also include distribution. > > Wikipedia states that "The end user is a central concept in software > engineering, referring to an abstraction of the group of persons who > will ultimately use a piece of software (i.e. the expected user or > target-user)." > > Soo....hmmmm....if I was developing an API for other developers or > distributors to use, then the end user could be bound by the GPL and > therefore it would constitue a EULA. Conversely, if I was developing an > end product, then the end user is likely to just be running the > application and therefore not covered by the GPL which means the GPL > would not be a EULA in that case as it brings no coverage to bear on > those users. This is going down the 'software interfaces','loadable kernel modules',etc. There is also consideration of this in GPL v3 draft to the provision of 'web services' and whether this is 'distribution'. If you were specifically worried that you intentions could be mis-interpreted you could always license your application under the LGPL. > > My brain hurts...why do I care? Care about hurting or about the GPL? Because you're a nerd! Simon. _______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [email protected] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) **Please remove these lines when replying
