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

[Gustavo C. M.]

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

You are welcome.

> 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?

I am not a lawyer (I don't even know the law), but it seems to me that
the owner of the coffee house, in the case you pointed out, keeps owning
the equipment in comparison with the former configuration: he owns the
whole network (the server, the connection and the clients -- I don't
know if a terminal's dumbness would interfere with its qualification as
a "client", and so with the "network" status of the whole thing), being
that his instrument of propagation of covered works (his customers, the
public, are using his equipment), while in (most?) cases of "Network
**Interaction**" none of the parties own the whole network: the client
computer is owned by the "consumer", the network is owned mostly by
third parties and the server is owned by the provider.

In the second case, the data for computation in the server comes from a
computer owned by the "customer" (let's say it's a "delegation" of
computing); in the first one, it already comes from the providers' one
(let's say the computing is already delegated by the very system's
structure) -- remembering that, so, the services provided in both cases
are not the same.

Em Dom, 2012-12-02 às 16:38 -0700, Patrick Anderson escreveu:
> >         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
> >>

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part