Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Why is the user using an MUA if it's located on the local hard drive, > but not if it's being accessed over the web with IE?
They are in both cases. But only in the former case is any copying going on. What we have here is an outright attempt to extend copyright provisions to a case where there isn't any copying. > > What about Google? Am I a user of google's software? If I got the > > source, how would I be able to change it and thus improve my > > google-using experience? > > Yes, you use Google. And you may be able to improve google by > submitting patches to them, but that's iffy. But there are certainly > uses to which you could put the google software, if you had the > source. Of course, but that's not the question. If I had the binaries for emacs, but not the sources, I would be greatly hampered in modifying *my copy* of emacs. Giving me the source helps me do that. But giving me the source for Google *doesn't* help me modify anything, because 1) I don't have anything to modify in the first place, and 2) even if I had the source and the binaries, since I'm not actually *running* them (they are being run on my behalf by Google) I am powerless to change them. I do grant of course that the source might be useful to me. But then, so is your tax return. Are you offering it? Thomas
