Re: Should the ASP loophole be fixed? (Re: The Affero license)
David Turner <email@example.com> writes:
> 2. Fundamental rights include the right to deny to users of the
> software, access to source code for the software.
> 4. Fundamental rights include the right to deny to *non-users* of the
> software, access to the source code for the software
> 5. No visitor to a web page is in any sense a user of the software which
> generates and serves that web page. So, the AGPL is non-free.
> I disagree with points (2), (3), and (5), primarily. I agree with point
> 4 entirely.
I have indicated separately that both (2) and (4) misstate my position
The GPL does not assert either (2) or (4), but would rather say that
both are wrong, because possessors of the software, whether users or
not, should are entitled to source.
You seem to be taking the odd positoin, in agreeing with (4), that if
you distribute a copy to someone who does not use it, then you should
not be obliged to provide source.
> I think primarily because of the level of interactivity supported by the
So why is a voice mail phone tree not interactivity?
> > If I got the
> > source, how would I be able to change it and thus improve my
> > google-using experience?
> See my comments in other threads about why this is the wrong question to
Then, pray tell, why is this the question the FSF asks on its web
page? Indeed, isn't this the very point that got RMS interested in
free software in the first place?
> I'm not saying "therefore" -- I'm stating more a premise, here, which is
> (again): You ought to be able to obtain source code for applications you
Really? Again, what is "use"? RMS used to stand for the right to
obtain source code for software *you could modify if you had the
source*, and that's entirely different in some cases from "use".
> When I search on google in the most ordinary way (via the form at
> http://www.google.com), I'm requesting that Googlebot give me answers.
> It might refuse, for instance, because I've asked too many times in the
> last five minutes.
Am I a user of the Google robot? Indeed, all the real labor is in the
robot and the indexing software, and neither of those are on the scene
when the Googlebot is activated.
> When I get cash out of the ATM, I'm requesting via a few buttons that it
> give me some money.
Am I not a user of the software in this case? Why suddenly am I not a
user? Is this not "causing requsets or issuing commands to the
application"? Suddenly you stop using the word user; why?