On Sat, 2008-01-12 at 23:45 +0000, Noah Slater wrote: > On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 09:12:10PM +0000, Alex Hudson wrote: > > I should add I think that's the case with v2, but not v3 - the wording > > of the latter is much more broad, and allows lending/hiring, but only on > > the same terms as copying. > > I think it comes down to what you class as "distribution" of the works. > > Clearly, in an internet cafe the proprietors are no distributing software.
Well, as you say, it does come down to interpretation. The reason I would say v2 probably doesn't permit it is that under UK law at least, "distribution" has a specific meaning separate from "lending", "hiring", "sale" and "loan", which are the types of act which copyright forbids with respect to issuing copies to the public. This is one reason I think the GPLv3 is quite good in this respect: the term "propagation" is defined in terms of the acts restricted by copyright, rather than relying on some common definition, and feels a lot more trustworthy in that respect. Cheers, Alex. _______________________________________________ Fsfe-uk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
