On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 23:57:39 -0700, "Gregor Richards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Jacobo Tarrio wrote: > > >O Martes, 21 de Xuño de 2005 ás 20:07:36 -0700, Gregor Richards escribía: > > > >>In response section 6: > >>(So that I can reference, the full section:) > >>6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the > >>Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the > >>original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to > >>these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions > >>on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not > >>responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. > >> It seems to me that the license from the original licensor would > >> include this new term/condition, as that is how (s)he licensed it. > > > > > > If you look closely, it says "subject to these terms and conditions" and > >"the rights granted herein", not "subject to the same terms and conditions > >under which you received the Program" nor "the rights granted to you". > > > >> I of course can't make an entirely new license based on the GNU GPL > >> without FSF's permission, so is there any way that a term could be added > >> at all? > > > > > > You can, if you remove the preamble. > > > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL > > > >>In response to the dissident problem: > >>I don't see how this hinders said dissident at all. If said dissident > >>has to send the entire source, (s)he as already made it available > >>through some computer network. > > > > > > Made *what* available? An interface to the program, not the program itself, > >like in the GPL. > > > >> If said dissident made it available on a public computer network, they > >>have already incriminated themselves > > > > > > Not necessarily. For example, in a CMS for dissidents, the source code > >might include "workflow" code that reflects the structure of the dissident > >organization (for example, the text is written then sent for approval to the > >local coordinator, then to the regional coordinator, then it is published > >and a copy is sent to the pamphlet printers). The source code now contains > >information which is not present in the user interface but is incriminating. > > > In response to "You can, if you remove the preamble" > Yes, I realized that just a bit too late, but have now made a hybrid > license. The FAQ doesn't make it clear whether you should maintain the > FSF Copyright ... on the one hand, the FAQ seems pretty insistant that > you remove all reference to GNU or FSF, but on the other hand, it's > certainly still copyrighted by the FSF. :( > > In response to "An interface to the program, not the program itself" > Am I the only person who fails to see this as a significant difference? > I don't think the freedoms of Free Software should be limited to people > who actually have copies of the software, but to all users of the > software. > > In response to the dissident problem: > I see putting it on a public network as equivilant to uploading a binary > of a GPL'd program to www.illegal-dissident-files.com . If they do that > as a handy means of distribution, they have to provide the sources. So > what do they do? They don't put it on a public server. This is not > discrimination against these dissidents, because they are not required > to put it on a public server. Well, my proposed modified license also > does not require that they put it on a public server. Even if they do > put it on a public server, they can put it behind a .htpasswd file. > Users who are blocked by the .htpasswd file never interact with the > program, and hence the code does not need to be sent. > Realistically, to most users, and even to most programmers most of the > time, a binary is just a black hole that produces output. Source is > what makes it less than just a black hole. I don't see why the right to > read the code behind this black hole of functionality should be limited > only to binaries physically on a system, and not to programs running > over a network. > And I think there's too much weight being placed on the distinction > between having a binary on one's system and running it through other > means. > Just my opinion though *shrugs* > > - Gregor Richards > -- > Gregor Richards > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- > http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service. >
Err, sorry, let me briefly correct myself here... > I see putting it on a public network as equivilant to uploading a binary > of a GPL'd program to www.illegal-dissident-files.com . If they do that > as a handy means of distribution, they have to provide the sources. They have to provide the sources ... or a written offer for them, to anyone who actually downloads the binary, etc, etc. But the basic point is still valid. -- Gregor Richards [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service.