-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Greg Ewing wrote: > Jan Ciger wrote: > >> Sorry, no. Distribution is *not* use. Distribution is fairly clearly >> defined in both the license and the copyright law. > > I think we're getting sidetracked by choice of words here. > What I mean to say is that the GPL not only says what > you *can* do with the software, it also says what you > *can't* do with it (i.e. modify + distribute + don't provide > source).
Yes, but it gets triggered only the act of distribution (or "conveyance" in the GPL v3 terms). This is important distinction from the legal point of view. The choice of words does matter there. > > Those restrictions are mainly what distinguishes the > GPL from most other open-source licences. So, the GPL-ness > of the GPL is mainly about imposing restrictions, not > granting freedoms. If granting freedoms is *all* you > want to do, you don't need to use the GPL. Nope, that's wrong - if it weren't GPL (or other license granting you the freedoms), you wouldn't have any rights to copy/distribute the software under the copyright law. Copyright law in most countries is "deny all" by default. GPL is special in the sense that it gives you these rights, but with some extra baggage. Some other FOSS licenses granting you these rights do it differently, but still - without the license you have NO rights to distribute the software. This is very different from e.g. Microsoft's EULAs, which *only* restrict even the remaining rights you would have under the copyright law and do not grant you any additional freedoms whatsoever. Regards, Jan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFH1rhdn11XseNj94gRAoj8AKDjpwGASgUdRp1eTTedyi6n6xE5QwCgzRkl scoLDjLva1ahDjD75Ag/Q4k= =kMcV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Soya-user mailing list Soya-user@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user
