> On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 10:02:23AM -0800, Terry Hancock wrote: > > and you're starting to say that the GPL denies you the right to look > > at http://www.microsoft.com with a free web browser, or http://www.fsf.org > > with IE.
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Steve Langasek wrote: > The main point to consider here is the intent of the person providing > the GPL client. Remember that the GPL says it is ALWAYS ok to create > non-free derivatives of GPL works, if you don't distribute them at all. > This means that, even if you regard a remote website as an RPC call, > when the *user* combines the browser and server by typing in a URL or > following a link, no GPL violation can have occurred. I'm confused - are you talking about GPLv2 or the theoretical GPLv3 with some way to close "non-recipient user loophole". The current GPL is pretty clear IMO. The possible changes are very murky. Let's look at the right to distribute a GPL client for a non-free RPC service. For instance, can I give out a copy of Lynx with a default homepage of http://microsoft.com? My reading of GPLv2 is that this is perfectly fine UNLESS it's distributed "as part of a whole" with the non-free code. Since the code behind microsoft.com isn't shipped as part of the modified Lynx, the GPL allows me to distribute. If I distribute the server itself, and include a modified Lynx as a way to access it, then I AM in violation if the server isn't avaialable under the GPL as well. > not necessarily a GPL interpreter. There are some hairy issues with GPL > interpreters that could indeed prevent Debian from shipping > GPL-incompatible scripts together with GPL interpreters, I believe. I hadn't put much thought into this before, but I believe you're right. Unless the interpreter includes additional freedoms to distribute along with non-free scripts, the whole work (interpreter + non-GPL-compatible scripts) is probably not distributable. The interpreter is, and the script is, but not together. -- Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.dagon.net/>
