Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 03:31:42 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@online.fr> Cc: Greg Pavelcak <gpav@som.umass.edu>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Use/Utilize Message-ID: <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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Rahul Siddharthan wrote:
> No, because "use" and "utilization" sound synonymous to me. The point
> is, is it use (or utilization) of the source code itself as part of
> another program (such as a modified version of gcc), or use (or
> utilization) of the program for its own purposes (producing a binary
> with gcc)? I think the GPL is pretty clear that it only applies to
> re-use of the source code, and that (for example) a binary produced by
> gcc is not covered by the GPL.
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?
There's an implicit contradiction here. In one case, I *use*
the resulting binary, and in the other case, I *use* the
source code.
Where is this distinction between which I am "using" in the
license?
It's hidden in verbiage that implys that "use is use", when,
in fact, for a programmer, "use is not use". I can "use"
the code, but I can't "utilize" the code -- "put to use" the
code.
> > I think there is, and I think this confusion is intentional.
>
> Well, you've presumably talked to lawyers, and Stallman has talked to
> lawyers, and the FSF employs lawyers, so whether there is confusion or
> not may be resolved when it gets to court. But in his interpretations
> of the GPL in interviews, Stallman is quite clear about what he
> intends; linking, or mixing, of source code is bundled by the GPL, but
> "mere aggregation" or bundling -- say, on a CDROM -- is not, and
> binaries produced by GPL'd tools are not.
The problem is that many people do not read/view/listen-to
each and every interview Stallman gives; their only take on
the code is their exposure to the license itself, which is
intentionally unclearly worded in order to cause people to
get one thing when they think they are getting another.
> > 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").
So our only argument is the extent of the intent to mislead.
-- Terry
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?3CAEDC9E.E4A5C02B>