On 12/10/07, L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lars NoodC)n wrote:
> > In regards to RMS, I have yet to see critique of his ideas, especially n
> > the mainstream media.
>
> Some infamous 'mainstream media' critique:
> [..more of the same: ..]
> http://z505.com/GNU-Violation-Press-Release1.htm
<<<According to the GNU license, anyone using a GNU GPL license in
their software application must ship the sources or a written notice
on where to get sources. Since web applications are applications, all
web applications and html pages that are powered by GNU scripts must
ship the sources (or a written notice) each time someone requests the
web page inside their web browser. Web developers are not doing this.
No one has noticed.>>
In fairness, these charges seem overzealous; deliberately
misinterpretting the spirit of the GPL. I don't know, though, so I'd
like it to be cleared up; as I understand it, a web app doesn't count
as "publishing"; people just using code like that are under no
obligation to publish it, and it's just the author/vendor who is
obligated to provide source.
Though, I suppose RMS (a hypothetical, consistent RMS) mght argue that
if you are providing a "web app" piece of software, then if your users
cannot edit your site on you ("modify software they use") then you are
violating the Four Freedoms and the GPL.
Is any of that anywhere near reality?
Argh, the GPL is so ridiculously complex; nobody understands it. The
main attraction open source has for me is that I *don't have to think
about licensing shit*, and GNU (especially now with GPLv3) miss that
goal completely.
-Nick
