Ciaran O'Riordan <ciaran@...> wrote:
"David Gerard" <dgerard@...> writes:
But if you use it on a publicly accessible website, you have to do extra things.
You have to do extra things because you made the software publicly available.
Putting it on a server for others isn't a "use" by you any more than putting a CD of the software in somebody elses hands is.
Would it be acceptable for a free software licence to require that the web browsers or word processors on my laptop always have a "download source" control which always works for the user?
That would certainly stop me letting people borrow my browser for a few minutes on the train to check their connections... "wait a mo, you're legally required to let it burn me a source CD".
Regards,
On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 15:10 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
Ciaran O'Riordan <ciaran@...> wrote:
"David Gerard" <dgerard@...> writes:
But if you use it on a publicly accessible website, you have to do extra things.
You have to do extra things because you made the software publicly available.
Putting it on a server for others isn't a "use" by you any more than putting a CD of the software in somebody elses hands is.
Would it be acceptable for a free software licence to require that the web browsers or word processors on my laptop always have a "download source" control which always works for the user?
That would certainly stop me letting people borrow my browser for a few minutes on the train to check their connections... "wait a mo, you're legally required to let it burn me a source CD".
You are not providing a service over a network, stop dreaming of stupidities please!
MJ Ray mjr@phonecoop.coop writes:
Would it be acceptable for a free software licence to require that the web browsers or word processors on my laptop always have a "download source" control which always works for the user?
Nobody suggested that. It's a fine question, but I think we already have enough to discuss without adding what-ifs.
That would certainly stop me letting people borrow my browser for a few minutes on the train to check their connections... "wait a mo, you're legally required to let it burn me a source CD".
This can never happen with any licence. Copyright law simply doesn't allow for it.
You don't need permission from the copyright holder to let someone use your laptop for a few minutes. No more than you do for letting that person read your newspaper for a few minutes.
And the requirement is to give them a URL where they can get the source. There's nothing in there about burning CDs.
Ciaran O'Riordan ciaran@fsfe.org wrote: [...]
You don't need permission from the copyright holder to let someone use your laptop for a few minutes. No more than you do for letting that person read your newspaper for a few minutes.
While the newspaper-borrowing is now well-established, I think the computer-borrowing one is a more recent change... by default, copyright law tends to deny things. It's not so long ago that permission to backup software was added to English law.
I'm disappointed by the refusal to discuss physical computer-borrowing when AGPL is about restricting network-based computer-borrowing.
Regards,
Am Mittwoch 21 November 2007 15:53:47 schrieb MJ Ray:
Ciaran O'Riordan ciaran@fsfe.org wrote: [...]
You don't need permission from the copyright holder to let someone use your laptop for a few minutes. No more than you do for letting that person read your newspaper for a few minutes.
While the newspaper-borrowing is now well-established, I think the computer-borrowing one is a more recent change... by default, copyright law tends to deny things. It's not so long ago that permission to backup software was added to English law.
I'm disappointed by the refusal to discuss physical computer-borrowing when AGPL is about restricting network-based computer-borrowing.
Regards,
The AGPL is not about borrowing computers, or using some software at someone else's house, its about network access. If I develop this super-cool AJAX Web2.0 Future-Application and provide the source-code, THAN I WANT other poeple to have access to modifications. If you take that code and add some extra-features and get a deal with google that they integrate it with GMail, I WANT GMail-users to know, that they are using free software, I WANT them to get Source-Code access and I WANT them to have the right to offer those services themselves. The AGPL provides for this, the GPL doesnt. If you make your business of Application Services and don't want your users to get the code, than you are working against the common goal of software freedom and social solidarity.
Regards, Hannes
Hannes Hauswedell hannes@fsfe.org wrote: [...]
The AGPL is not about borrowing computers, or using some software at someone else's house, its about network access.
The differences between network access, physical access and terminal-server access aren't particularly significant.
If I develop this super-cool AJAX Web2.0 Future-Application and provide the source-code, THAN I WANT other poeple to have access to modifications. If you take that code and add some extra-features and get a deal with google that they integrate it with GMail, I WANT GMail-users to know, that they are using free software, I WANT them to get Source-Code access and I WANT them to have the right to offer those services themselves. The AGPL provides for this, the GPL doesnt.
The AGPL doesn't provide for this any more than the GPL does. The GPL provides for this as far as reasonable, with the show-terms requirements and so on. The AGPL's extras are circumventable and only hurt good people - evil people will still avoid them.
If you make your business of Application Services and don't want your users to get the code, than you are working against the common goal of software freedom and social solidarity.
Just as well I do want users to get the code, then!
I don't think output-marking restrictions are a good way to do that. By misleading people into thinking AGPL could, for example, force google to releasing source to any part of googlemail (it is not called GMail here), AGPL is being a massive distraction from fixing the fundamental problems of Software-as-a-Service.
Regards,