On Jun 18, 2007, "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> wrote:
Yes. I'm (hypothetically) running the web server such that it serves
web pages to you or anyone else. You don't become user of a software
just because you establish a network session with it. You clearly
need more than that.
That said, the precise threshold isn't clear. For complex web
applications that run part on the client and part on the server, or
even almost entirely on the server, one can argue that a user is
indeed using the software even though it runs mostly on the server.
Some people call this kind of situation the ASP loophole in the GPL.
I'm not sure I want to disturb users of this list with the details
about this, but I'd be pleased to discuss this off the list.
Not really. When a user receives a copy of the software, there's
distribution going on, and that's when the user can start having any
expectations of having her freedoms respected as to that software.
It's the authorization decisions that are alien to GPLv2. That's just
yet another form of denying users the freedoms that they ought to
receive along with the software.
It doesn't. Why should it have to? Whether someone is authorized or
not is a direct consequence of the freedoms. The moment the software
was distributed to you, you're entitled to the freedoms. Imposing
restrictions on them is a violation of the spirit, if not the letter,
of the license.
This is a very limited reading of the GPL that leaves out one of its
most important provisions: the bit about "no further restrictions".
I can agree with that. As long as the authorization decisions are not
used as means to deprive users' of the freedoms that must not be
restricted, they can be whatever the distributor fancies.
It doesn't matter how elaborate the excuse to disrespect the freedoms
of the user is. If there are further restrictions to them, then this
violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the GPL.
Ah, ok, so I was sloppy above and you caught that.
If someone else places hardware on your home for you to use, even if
they still own it, then you can be a user of someone else's hardware.
And at that point the GPL kicks in, because the software was
distributed to you (even if the hardware wasn't sold), and with the
distributed software come the freedoms, which, per the GPL, the
distributor must not disrespect.
Like this:
Tivoization is treating the hardware that comes along with the
software as if it was different from others. But it isn't.
Exactly! Just like the GPL doesn't permit the distributor to state
"BTW, you can't install or run this software on your mother's
computer", it doesn't permit the distributor to state "BTW, you can't
install or run this software on this computer I'm selling you". The
"no further restrictions" applies equally to all computers. It's not
just because you have some control over some particular hardware that
you deliver along with the software that you're entitled to use that
to limit the user's freedoms.
It doesn't make the sold hardware special. How come you think it
does? It's exactly the opposite. It just says the distributor can't
make the hardware special, so as to restrain the users' freedoms that
are inseparable from the software.
And why don't I have the right to say what software runs on the
hardware I received along with the GPLed software? Because the
tivoizer doesn't want me to. The tivoizer is placing barriers such
that I cannot adapt the GPLed software included in that device to my
own needs. How is that not a further restriction to the four
freedoms? How is that not making that hardware special?
As in, the vendor can turn to the user and sue her for patent
infringement, after distributing GPLed software to her, just because
the use of the patent is not a right the vendor chooses to give to the
user?
I never said it was irrational. I just said it's a further
restriction on the exercise of the freedoms that must accompany the
software wherever it goes.
It doesn't because the US law makes that implicit. GPLv3 makes it
explicit because it was found that it wasn't like this everywhere.
Absence of disrespect for users' freedoms. Any measure taken by the
vendor to disrespect them is a failure to comply with the obligations
imposed by the spirit, if not the letter, of the license.
And, just in case, IANAL ;-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
