Hi, Puuh this is already long, but I think there are some good points here:
On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 04:41:52PM +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote: > Of course there will be different expectations on how this will be > handled. Just because the word "users" (GPL1 days) is also applied to > web users does not itself mean the Stallman WOULD have automatically > wanted to include them in the protections of the GPL. He may have wanted > to but it would perhaps have been based on activities and rights, not > merely because the word matched. Although this is speculative (we would have to ask RMS ;) ) I think this makes some point. > My personal view is that if in GPL1 days, Stallman looked ahead, web > service users would NOT have been considered, just as the source to NNTP > or Gopher servers need not be made available to those who connect to > them. (Further evidence is that AGPL took so long). > > However, with thin clients the nature of software provision has changed > and so philosophically it becomes important that web users SHOULD be > included, and are. > > I see this as a change in interpretation of core values even if the same > WORDS can be used to describe those values. > > And I see the AGPL/GPL3 combination as undesirable. I prefer the GPL3+ > AGPL linking solution I proposed as it does not taint or force-upgrade > any GPL3 enhancements. Sorry, I don't understand what you mean here. Best wishes Michael -- Join the fellowship of FSFE and protect your freedom! | http://www.fsfe.org _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
