Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 13:50:21 +0200 From: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@online.fr> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Greg Pavelcak <gpav@som.umass.edu>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Use/Utilize Message-ID: <20020406115021.GB2576@lpt.ens.fr> In-Reply-To: <3CAEDC9E.E4A5C02B@mindspring.com> References: <20020405183857.GA58446@oitunix.oit.umass.edu> <20020405231950.B63981@lpt.ens.fr> <3CAE3C62.4012DA04@mindspring.com> <20020406064529.GB1426@lpt.ens.fr> <3CAE9E85.BDEDB76C@mindspring.com> <20020406083409.GB1901@lpt.ens.fr> <3CAEDC9E.E4A5C02B@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert said on Apr 6, 2002 at 03:31:42:
> OK. Say I agree with your definition, and "use is use".
>
> That means that if I'm permitted to "use" the binary, as in,
> I can contact a web services platform running the binary,
> and for which I am never in physical possession of the binary,
> then the same restrictions for that "use" apply to my "use"
> of the source code to prepare derivative works, which I then
> provide only in binary form. Right?
This is, I believe, a grey area -- when the GPL v2 was written this
situation didn't exist. Stallman was rumoured to be addressing the
question in a GPL v3 but I don't know what became of it. I very
much doubt the ambiguity here is deliberate.
> > > Surely, you must agree that the use of the word "free" is a
> > > redefinition, right?
> >
> > No, but I agree it's ambiguous, and misleading, and probably
> > deliberately so.
>
> Ah. There. Thank you. We agree to the deliberately
> misleading use of language in the license, even if you
> think it's limited to "free" in "libre" vs. "gratis" ("free"
> implies "gratis"; the correct Englis word for "libre" is
> "liberated").
No; I believe that the term "free software" was chosen more for
"resonance" reasons than for accuracy and easy comprehension; but the
GPL, and the GNU manifesto, and all Stallman's writings, explain in
pitiless detail what he really means. As far as the GPL is concerned
there is no ambiguity, because it defines the meaning carefully.
(Which, again, is a subset of the dictionary meaning, not a
redefinition.)
- Rahul
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020406115021.GB2576>