On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 07:28:03PM -0500, David Turner wrote: > > I agree that that's a reasonable and canonical interpretation of '4'. > > My concern is with alternative interpretations of it, given that some > > people here are advocating quite liberal stretching of the term > > "interactive" to accomodate PHPNuke. > > I don't think this is a stretch.
Well, here's your problem. Your stretch relies upon a single act being both an act of distributing the *modified* program and of invoking it interactively. Here's why that must be the case: * (2)(c) applies only when you're distributing a modified copy of the program * (2)(c) applies only when both the original program was interactive and the modified program is interactive Here's why your comparison fails: * The "modified program" distribution could be modified without ever having any human interaction! Can you imagine the dastardly possibilities if you count as modification and distribution under (2) acts that nobody even intended to perform or did perform? I repeat: this "modified" program need NOT be modified by any human. I maintain that this is not really a modification at all. * Even if it is modification, the license states "YOU may" (emphasis mine). It does not give a computer process the rights to modify the program. Are you asserting the absurd condition that a PHPNuke process is violating its own license by modifying and distributing itself without the user's knowledge? Note: I know of no legal jurisdictions that assign legal rights to executing computer processes. * I maintain that in the general scheme of things (which is the sense in which the GPL was written and must be considered), "viewing a user interface" cannot possibly constitute "distributing a modified copy of the software". The HTML code, inclusive of embedded ECMAScript, is nothing but user interface controls. Why are you not asserting that the X protocol stream is copyrightable but an HTTP stream is? What about situations where the HTTP stream is compressed with gzip for transport? Transmitted with chunked encoding? It may end up bearing less of a resemblence to the original source code than an X protocol stream to a low-level X11 app. Why is this different? * Even if you do consider this to be distributing a modified copy of the source code, I advance that the act of "downloading a modified copy of the source code" is fundamentally different from starting and running for "interactive use in the most ordinary way" and thus is not subject to (2)(c). These points, and the ones in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200303/msg00002.html, are ones that I have yet to hear any response to from you or others advocating your position. -- John
