3 ms·

For me usage is the ability to modify it for my purposes. Writing a script that interacts with said software to enhance or modify its behavior is as easy as cl

For me usage is the ability to modify it for my purposes. Writing a script that interacts with said software to enhance or modify its behavior is as easy as clicking an UI button and I don't see a difference. Also the "understood sense" is irrelevant. Usage is whatever you do with it that's not distribution in the sense defined by the copyright law. The genius of the GPL licenses has been that they are just copyright licenses handling distribution, but that don't impose any restriction on usage. This was by design. Here's Richard Stallman's own take on "freedom 0": https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freed... > "They just need to publish any modifications they make to said AGPL'd software" N.B. that's in fact a huge restriction, being a matter of costs too, because "publishing any modifications" costs both time and money.

belorn 8y ago
You can still modify it for my purposes so long all users who interacts with it over a network has access to the modified source code. If the number of users are you then modify away! > Usage is whatever you do with it that's not distribution in the sense defined by the copyright law. That is the tricky part. A video streaming site is considered distribution by many copyright laws. There was a time where simply using a website was not considered distribution, but then scope of copyright was extended and concepts like "public performance" and "making available to the public" was applied to works provided through web services. GPLv3 however gives an additional permission that allow "interaction with a user through a computer network", even if copyright law would forbid it.
- bad_user 8y ago
  That's an interesting take on the matter. Personally I agree with copyleft licenses for as long as they are just restricting distribution as defined by copyright law. This because IMO there needs to be a clear, lawful boundary for what FOSS licenses can and cannot restrict. Will look more into it.

belorn 8y ago

You can still modify it for my purposes so long all users who interacts with it over a network has access to the modified source code. If the number of users are you then modify away! > Usage is whatever you do with it that's not distribution in the sense defined by the copyright law. That is the tricky part. A video streaming site is considered distribution by many copyright laws. There was a time where simply using a website was not considered distribution, but then scope of copyright was extended and concepts like "public performance" and "making available to the public" was applied to works provided through web services. GPLv3 however gives an additional permission that allow "interaction with a user through a computer network", even if copyright law would forbid it.

bad_user 8y ago
That's an interesting take on the matter. Personally I agree with copyleft licenses for as long as they are just restricting distribution as defined by copyright law. This because IMO there needs to be a clear, lawful boundary for what FOSS licenses can and cannot restrict. Will look more into it.