Re: Barriers to an ASP loophole closure
email@example.com (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Jeremy Hankins <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> But you still haven't answered my question: *IF* it could be done (and
>> passed the other two tests I mentioned in my other message), would it
>> be free?
> No. It wouldn't because freedom means, at its root, the absence of
> restrictions. The fact that something might be helpful to somebody
> doesn't justify it as a restriction; the only real justification can
> be that it actually *augments* their freedom over the software (which
> is why the GPL's source requirement is ok).
Feh. It augments the freedom of the users. Others have already
pointed out that freedom as "absence of restrictions" needs further
clarification in order to be meaningful.
The only difference between your position and mine (correct me if I'm
wrong) is that I'm proposing that freedoms should attach to some
properly defined sense of "users," but you argue that freedoms really
should only attach to possessors of copies.
But I'm not yet clear what your argument for that is. On the face of
it, attaching it to use makes more sense, since who the possessor of a
copy is is really a technical detail that can be changed or made
unclear via technical means (e.g., ASP).
Jeremy Hankins <email@example.com>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03