> Propagation includes > copying, distribution (with or without modification), **making > available to the public**, and in some countries other > activities as well.
Thanks for the help Gustavo, I had not read it this way. On the other hand, I wonder why "Network Interaction" (as covered by the GNU AGPL) is not considered "making available the public"... Is there a legal difference if the owner put the computers in the back of the cafe and had dumb terminals for the customers to connect through a network? On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Gustavo C. M. <[email protected]> wrote: > Just an exercise of making distinctions: > >> For example, the owner of an "Internet Cafe" could offer the use of >> Free Software on machines that the users do not own. >> Since the software is not being distributed, the GNU GPL does not come >> into effect. > > It comes; it's just that it's "propagation", not "conveying", of a > "covered work". > > Let's have some GPL (*'s added) https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html : > > "TERMS AND CONDITIONS > 0. Definitions. > [...] > “The Program” refers to any copyrightable work licensed under > this License. [...] > A “covered work” means either the unmodified Program or a work > based on the Program. > To “propagate” a work means to do anything with it that, without > permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for > infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it > on a computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes > copying, distribution (with or without modification), **making > available to the public**, and in some countries other > activities as well. > To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables > other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a > user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is > not conveying. > [...] > 2. Basic Permissions. > [...] > You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not > convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise > remains in force. You may convey covered works to others for the > sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for > you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, > provided that you comply with the terms of this License in > conveying all material for which you do not control copyright. > [...] > Conveying under any other circumstances is permitted solely > under the conditions stated below. [...] > [...] > 8. Termination. > You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as > expressly provided under this License. [...] > [...] > 9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies. > You are not required to accept this License in order to receive > or run a copy of the Program. [...] However, nothing other than > this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any > covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not > accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a > covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do > so. > [...]" > > So, what you meant by "the license to come to effect" is better > expressed by "to be used to convey covered works", which would imply the > dissemination of the license in the society, which is what you are > talking about. One could say (perhaps the following is not the best use > of language) this is some distinction between "juridical" and > "political" perspectives about Free Software. > > Em Dom, 2012-12-02 às 11:13 -0700, Patrick Anderson escreveu: >> > Under this definition Cloud software and patented codecs become >> > non-free, right ? >> >> Yes, the GNU AGPL fixes some of the Cloud problem, but there are cases >> it does not cover. >> >> For example, the owner of an "Internet Cafe" could offer the use of >> Free Software on machines that the users do not own. >> >> Since the software is not being distributed, the GNU GPL does not come >> into effect. >> >> Since the user is not interacting with the software over a network >> connection, the GNU AGPL does not come into effect. >> >> There is another case I had thought of some time ago, but I cannot >> remember right now... >> >> In the end we will need to discover the meaning of "Free as in >> Freedom" for sharing the costs of *hosting* software. We need a new >> way to share physical property that preserves user freedoms - a sort >> of 'PropertyLeft' that co-owners will use property rights to apply to >> their shared assets. >> >> >> Patrick Anderson >> http://ImputedProduction.BlogSpot.com >>
