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? > > 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 want to pick out.
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 possible for him to change it. > > 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 possessor are > > different folks), the user is not the one who decides what software to > > use (paradoxically). The user can't change the software at all. > > In the case of a web page it makes as much sense to say that the admin > is using apache as it does to say that the viewer is -- more, imho. Exactly. But the Affero bit says that the *viewer* is the "user", and that the source has to be given to the *user*.