On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 05:03:05AM -0500, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: ... > > Suppose you write a free program that can run in a free GNU/Linux > > distro and talks with Google Maps. With it, people can use Google Maps > > and not run any nonfree JS code. Use of this free program depends on > > the use of the site, Google Maps, but it does not depend on _your_ > > running any nonfree program. So it is ok on this criterion. > > The analogy doesn't hold: > > The analogy holds, only that the entity used as an example might not > be the accurate. The point is that the license, or access to the > program on the server doesn't matter -- what matters is if the user is > required to install or run non-free software on their own local > machine.
You are right, the example is wrong because servers of Google Maps don't run proprietary software. > the server part of Google Maps is deployed by its developer and > copyright holder, Google, on Google's own machines; the server > software of Google Maps is free, even though unreleased, whereas we > discuss the case where server software is proprietary. > > What is the license of Google Maps? Server software of Google Maps is never distributed, so there is no license---copyright holders need no license for their own software in order to use it, it's always free for them. > Then, for libre-sapienza (Savannah task #15792), the university > and its students form a single entity: the administration > of the university provides the students with some information > for internal needs of the university. > > Are the students, or the university running any non-free software when > they install or use libre-sapienza? Yes, this is the point.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature