Hi,
Puuh this is already long, but I think there are some good points here:
On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 04:41:52PM +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
Of course there will be different expectations on how this will be handled. Just because the word "users" (GPL1 days) is also applied to web users does not itself mean the Stallman WOULD have automatically wanted to include them in the protections of the GPL. He may have wanted to but it would perhaps have been based on activities and rights, not merely because the word matched.
Although this is speculative (we would have to ask RMS ;) ) I think this makes some point.
My personal view is that if in GPL1 days, Stallman looked ahead, web service users would NOT have been considered, just as the source to NNTP or Gopher servers need not be made available to those who connect to them. (Further evidence is that AGPL took so long).
However, with thin clients the nature of software provision has changed and so philosophically it becomes important that web users SHOULD be included, and are.
I see this as a change in interpretation of core values even if the same WORDS can be used to describe those values.
And I see the AGPL/GPL3 combination as undesirable. I prefer the GPL3+ AGPL linking solution I proposed as it does not taint or force-upgrade any GPL3 enhancements.
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean here.
Best wishes Michael -- Join the fellowship of FSFE and protect your freedom! | http://www.fsfe.org