David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 > distributees.
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.) Thomas
