Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>>My point is, you are asking for too much control over how the other >>>party uses their hardware. You should certainly have the right to use >>>it on your own hardware; that would be more freedom than you have now, >>>and certainly enough to consider it Free Software. I'm sure that there >>>is plenty of software in Debian main that neither of us could take >>>advantage of for whatever reason. That does not make the software any >>>less Free. >> >> True, but your argument for why they should have to give me copies of >> their software is that to do so enhances my freedom. I don't >> understand why that argument applies to software and not hardware. If >> I implement an Emacs Machine, which provides Emacs but only in >> hard-wired circuits, but in such a way that it's a derivative of a >> work under this license, is it free to require me to give you one? To >> give you the plans? > > If you give me access to such a machine, you would need to give me the > plans for that machine, yes; you certainly would not be required to > distribute the machine itself. > >> Why is the answer different for software? > > It isn't. The "plans" for software are the source code, and the > "machine" would be the binary. This proposed license would require you > to distribute the source code; it says nothing about distributing the > binary (if the two are distinct, anyway).
OK. So if I'm using a machine to provide you with an Emacs service, I have to give you the plans. For a software machine, does that include the OS kernel? The VMware instance I'm running it in? The underlying OS? The CPU, the network drivers? The GPL has a clear place to draw a line: what is distributed with the work, and not part of the OS. It can do that because it's tying into copyright law, and the idea of distribution is clear. I don't think you have anything like that clear line for use. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
