Re: The Show So Far

[tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)]

David Turner <novalis@novalis.org> writes:

> > Why the GPL is free
> > -------------------
> > 
> > But then why is the forced distribution of source ok which the GPL
> > requires?  Because this actually augments the freedom of the recipient
> > of the code.  
> 
> Doesn't this depend on which "recipient" you're talking about?  Note
> that sections (2)(b), (3), (6), and (7) reduce the options of
> distributors, for the purpose of increasing the options of
> distributees.  

I'm talking about the *recipient of the code*.  Was that somehow
unclear where I said "the recipient of the code"?

> (2)(d) reduces the options of those who modify, for the purpose of
> increasing the options of users.  The cases are analagous (although I do
> not argue that they are identical).

Those users don't get any additional options, because unlike the
recipient of a binary, they have no ability whatsoever to change the
source and substitute the new version for the old.  For that reason,
giving them the source has *not* in any way preserved their ability to
modify the software.

> And isn't the ASP thing just a technical trick to keep users from
> modifying the software they use?

Yes indeed!  That's why it's already prohibited by the GPL.

> But this interpretation does nothing to close the ASP loophole, in which
> no software is distributed at all.  For instance, a modified version of
> GCC hooked up to the web, in which you upload your software for
> compilation, and download the compiled version.

I do wish people wouldn't do that, but I can't fathom why it's an
infringement on anybody's freedom under the four freedoms.

If I had the source for that modified version, and I changed it, how
could I now use it?  (Think google here.)  


Thomas