Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Free Software CD for Windows?

[Gustavo C. M.]

Just an exercise of making distinctions:

> For example, the owner of an "Internet Cafe" could offer the use of
> Free Software on machines that the users do not own.
> Since the software is not being distributed, the GNU GPL does not come
> into effect.

It comes; it's just that it's "propagation", not "conveying", of a
"covered work".

Let's have some GPL (*'s added) https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html :

        "TERMS AND CONDITIONS
        0. Definitions.
        [...]
        “The Program” refers to any copyrightable work licensed under
        this License. [...]
        A “covered work” means either the unmodified Program or a work
        based on the Program.
        To “propagate” a work means to do anything with it that, without
        permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for
        infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it
        on a computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes
        copying, distribution (with or without modification), **making
        available to the public**, and in some countries other
        activities as well.
        To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables
        other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a
        user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is
        not conveying.
        [...]
        2. Basic Permissions.
        [...]
        You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not
        convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise
        remains in force. You may convey covered works to others for the
        sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for
        you, or provide you with facilities for running those works,
        provided that you comply with the terms of this License in
        conveying all material for which you do not control copyright.
        [...]
        Conveying under any other circumstances is permitted solely
        under the conditions stated below. [...]
        [...]
        8. Termination.
        You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as
        expressly provided under this License. [...]
        [...]
        9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.
        You are not required to accept this License in order to receive
        or run a copy of the Program. [...] However, nothing other than
        this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any
        covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not
        accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a
        covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do
        so.
        [...]"

So, what you meant by "the license to come to effect" is better
expressed by "to be used to convey covered works", which would imply the
dissemination of the license in the society, which is what you are
talking about. One could say (perhaps the following is not the best use
of language) this is some distinction between "juridical" and
"political" perspectives about Free Software.

Em Dom, 2012-12-02 às 11:13 -0700, Patrick Anderson escreveu:
> > Under this definition Cloud software and patented codecs become
> > non-free, right ?
> 
> Yes, the GNU AGPL fixes some of the Cloud problem, but there are cases
> it does not cover.
> 
> For example, the owner of an "Internet Cafe" could offer the use of
> Free Software on machines that the users do not own.
> 
> Since the software is not being distributed, the GNU GPL does not come
> into effect.
> 
> Since the user is not interacting with the software over a network
> connection, the GNU AGPL does not come into effect.
> 
> There is another case I had thought of some time ago, but I cannot
> remember right now...
> 
> In the end we will need to discover the meaning of "Free as in
> Freedom" for sharing the costs of *hosting* software.  We need a new
> way to share physical property that preserves user freedoms - a sort
> of 'PropertyLeft' that co-owners will use property rights to apply to
> their shared assets.
> 
> 
> Patrick Anderson
> http://ImputedProduction.BlogSpot.com
>

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part