* simo wrote, On 22/11/07 16:42: > On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 16:17 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote: > >> * simo wrote, On 22/11/07 16:07: >> >>> On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 15:24 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote: >>> >>> >>>> * simo wrote, On 22/11/07 15:11: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Ciaran, you fell in Mj Ray's trap with both feet. >>>>> You are confusing restrictions with requirements. >>>>> >>>>> GPLv3 added new requirements not new restrictions from my POV. >>>>> Of course any requirements can be spelt as a restriction from the point >>>>> of view of the distributor, but the point of view of the GPL is to >>>>> protect *user*'s freedom not distributors freedom. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> With this meaning of "user" (as it pertains to the point of view of >>>> the GPL) _one_ of the users freedoms is to distribute, or therefore a >>>> distributor is a user in that sense. >>>> >>>> >>> This is your interpretation which I reject. Even for copyright law use >>> and distribution are 2 different things. When you say *use* in the >>> context of a license you have to use the copyright meaning not the >>> everyday meaning, as every day meaning is broad and general. >>> >>> >> Funny, I used the philosophical GPL meaning, as you seemed to indicate >> you were: >> "but the point of view of the GPL is to protect *user*'s freedom not >> distributors freedom" >> >> And lets look at the front page: http://www.gnu.org/ >> >> "Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, >> distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it >> refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software" >> >> You can reject my interpretation and I expect you will also supply an >> explanation of how you are not also rejecting the FSF interpretation >> > > Sorry I don't see the contradiction. > I know, but I did, however you explained below.
>>>> Because of this I don't think we can say "the point of view of the GPL >>>> is to protect non-distributing *users* freedom" because such a >>>> statement contradicts the idea of the freedoms. >>>> >>>> >>> Users are users, there are no "non-distributing users", or "distributing >>> users". >>> >>> >> Surely *this* is heresy? Distribution is one of the freedoms the GPL >> guarantees to users. >> > > Again you mix roles. > *Users* are free to distribute, The moment they distribute, they become > *also* distributor. In the role of *distributors*, they have to fulfill > requirements. > Unless they are using the AGPL? Then a user has requirements too? > The license is clear, *mere use* does not require you to accept terms. > But if you want to *distribute* things matters change, you *now* have to > fulfill requirements. > except with the AGPL? >>> There are users and distributors. The fact that someone can be in both >>> categories at once, is not relevant. >>> >>> >>> >> It is from a GPL philosophical point of view. >> > > Philosophy is not legally binding. And you are confusing what a license > can do with what you wish it could do. > No I am not, I am confusing what (you* meant by "user" because you scoped the word user with the "point of view of the GPL" You have explained yourself, but I reserve to say what confused me. > [deleted] > >>>> And so I don't know what you mean by what you said. >>>> >>>> >>> Cause you should stop mixing common use terms with technical terms. >>> >>> >>> >> You were the one who placed the scope on the word user: >> "but the point of view of the GPL is to protect *user*'s freedom not >> distributors freedom" >> > > Exactly. I used user in a specific way, not in a generic way. > whatever >> And yet.... if I misunderstood what you meant by user, please explain, >> because in any case as I said it doesn't make any sense however you >> look at it. >> > > Sorry, I can't be more explicit than this, what I know of law is self > taught and just good enough to let me grasp (I hope) basics, not enough > to clearly explain to a layman with adequate words (and English not > being my main language makes that even more difficult). > Well you seemed certain enough that what you said wasn't confusing to a native english speaker, even though I am a native english speaker and I said clearly that I was confused and showed where and how. > But you have to understand that a license is a legal document, therefore > you have to read it keeping in mind the legal framework and language. > It was merely YOUR use of the word USER that was puzzling. I understand that license and that is WHY it concerns me. > If you keep thinking about the GPL as something else, well, bad luck, no > wonder you will keep finding it difficult to understand the language and > the requirements, and who is the recipient of such requirements. > I think it is the language of a non-native english-speaker I was having difficulty understanding. Sam
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
