Re: The Show So Far
David Turner <firstname.lastname@example.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
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.)