Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Free Software CD for Windows?

[Patrick Anderson]

>         Propagation includes
>         copying, distribution (with or without modification), **making
>         available to the public**, and in some countries other
>         activities as well.

Thanks for the help Gustavo, I had not read it this way.

On the other hand, I wonder why "Network Interaction" (as covered by
the GNU AGPL) is not considered "making available the public"...

Is there a legal difference if the owner put the computers in the back
of the cafe and had dumb terminals for the customers to connect
through a network?



On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Gustavo C. M. <gustavo_cm@lavabit.com> wrote:
> Just an exercise of making distinctions:
>
>> For example, the owner of an "Internet Cafe" could offer the use of
>> Free Software on machines that the users do not own.
>> Since the software is not being distributed, the GNU GPL does not come
>> into effect.
>
> It comes; it's just that it's "propagation", not "conveying", of a
> "covered work".
>
> Let's have some GPL (*'s added) https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html :
>
>         "TERMS AND CONDITIONS
>         0. Definitions.
>         [...]
>         “The Program” refers to any copyrightable work licensed under
>         this License. [...]
>         A “covered work” means either the unmodified Program or a work
>         based on the Program.
>         To “propagate” a work means to do anything with it that, without
>         permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for
>         infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it
>         on a computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes
>         copying, distribution (with or without modification), **making
>         available to the public**, and in some countries other
>         activities as well.
>         To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables
>         other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a
>         user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is
>         not conveying.
>         [...]
>         2. Basic Permissions.
>         [...]
>         You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not
>         convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise
>         remains in force. You may convey covered works to others for the
>         sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for
>         you, or provide you with facilities for running those works,
>         provided that you comply with the terms of this License in
>         conveying all material for which you do not control copyright.
>         [...]
>         Conveying under any other circumstances is permitted solely
>         under the conditions stated below. [...]
>         [...]
>         8. Termination.
>         You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as
>         expressly provided under this License. [...]
>         [...]
>         9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.
>         You are not required to accept this License in order to receive
>         or run a copy of the Program. [...] However, nothing other than
>         this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any
>         covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not
>         accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a
>         covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do
>         so.
>         [...]"
>
> So, what you meant by "the license to come to effect" is better
> expressed by "to be used to convey covered works", which would imply the
> dissemination of the license in the society, which is what you are
> talking about. One could say (perhaps the following is not the best use
> of language) this is some distinction between "juridical" and
> "political" perspectives about Free Software.
>
> Em Dom, 2012-12-02 às 11:13 -0700, Patrick Anderson escreveu:
>> > Under this definition Cloud software and patented codecs become
>> > non-free, right ?
>>
>> Yes, the GNU AGPL fixes some of the Cloud problem, but there are cases
>> it does not cover.
>>
>> For example, the owner of an "Internet Cafe" could offer the use of
>> Free Software on machines that the users do not own.
>>
>> Since the software is not being distributed, the GNU GPL does not come
>> into effect.
>>
>> Since the user is not interacting with the software over a network
>> connection, the GNU AGPL does not come into effect.
>>
>> There is another case I had thought of some time ago, but I cannot
>> remember right now...
>>
>> In the end we will need to discover the meaning of "Free as in
>> Freedom" for sharing the costs of *hosting* software.  We need a new
>> way to share physical property that preserves user freedoms - a sort
>> of 'PropertyLeft' that co-owners will use property rights to apply to
>> their shared assets.
>>
>>
>> Patrick Anderson
>> http://ImputedProduction.BlogSpot.com
>>