On Thursday 14 June 2007 23:19:24 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
And where in GPLv2 is "Freedom #0"?
As a simple matter of fact, the *only* activities covered by the GPLv2
are "copying, distributing and modifying". It says so in the license itself.
Then they have made a bad decision. While it can be argued that "the right to
run the software" is guaranteed, the truth is that the license is very clear
about what it covers. That's *DIRECTLY* in section 0 of the license. If
someone has interpreted it to cover something besides what it explicitly
states then it has been badly interpreted.
In case you don't remember, GPLv2, section 2, paragraph 2:
"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
Whether that is true depends on what the Program does."
In other words, the license cannot be sanely interpreted to cover *execution*
of the program. Yes, it says that the *license* doesn't restrict you from
running the program, but that *DOESN'T* matter, because the opening sentence
says: "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope." QED: The intent of the
license is clear and it is to guarantee those three stated rights.
DRH
--
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.
-
