«

Sweetpea wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 14:09:36 +1300, victor wrote:
>
>> Sweetpea wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 12:27:20 +1300, victor wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Thus, any rights you may have to use that software for any purpose
>>>>> are entirely governed by your compliance with the terms of the
>>>>> license.
>>>> Not true
>>>>
>>>> Compliance or not with the copyright conditions doesn't affect the end
>>>> usage, just the act of distribution.
>>>> For instance there have been several gpl violation cases where
>>>> embedded firmware has been found to infringe the conditions. All this
>>>> means is that the infringing party has no right to distribute the
>>>> software, the end users who have bought the hardware are entitled to
>>>> continue using it.
>>> Bullshit!
>>>
>>> Any rights _you_ may have to use that GPL'd software for any purpose
>>> are entirely governed by _your_ compliance with the terms of the GPL.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_so...e_restrictions
>
> The GPL is a very clear, agreeable, and reasonable license. If you do not like the terms of the license,
> then do not use that software.
>

However it doesn't place any restrictions on usage.
To do so would violate the core principles of free software.

Some clues for you.

Richard Stallman :

A free program must be available for all kinds of use. That's
fundamental. For authors to try to restrict what users do, in their own
lives, in their own activities, is completely unacceptable. Any program,
unless it serves only trivial purposes, like a game, can be used for
evil purposes, just as a pen, or typewriter, or a telephone, can be used
for evil purposes.

I don't think that we should allow pens or telephones or typewriters to
come with requirements for what you can use them for, nor general
purpose programs. That is its own form of tyranny. A program with such
restrictions would not be Free Software. We will not allow any such
restrictions to be added to any version of GNU GPL.

The most common restriction they propose, is restriction against
military use. I would be extremely unhappy if my friend [sounds like
"Zargento Mayor Totos Bravo"] in Venezuela could no longer install new
versions of our software on the army's servers. The army of Venezuela
may be necessary for resistance against an invasion some day from: you
can guess where.


Eben Moglen :
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/hessla.html
The Hacktivismo Enhanced-Source Software License Agreement (HESSLA) is a
software source license that tries to put restrictions of ethical
conduct on use and modification of the software. Because it restricts
what jobs people can use the software for, and restricts in substantive
ways what jobs modified versions of the program can do, it is not a free
software license. The ironic result is that the community of people most
likely to feel sympathy for the goals of the HESSLA cannot contribute to
HESSLA-covered software without violating its principles.

The restrictions in the HESSLA prohibit specific activities that are
inexcusable: violations of human rights, and introduction of features
that spy on the user. People might ask why we do not declare an
exception for these particular restrictions—why do we stick to the
general policy of rejecting all restrictions on use and on the
functionality of modified versions?

If we were ever going to make an exception to our principles of free
software, here would be the place to do it. But it would be a mistake to
do so: it would weaken our general stand, and would achieve nothing.
Trying to stop those particular activities with a software license is
either unnecessary or ineffective.

In regard to modified versions, the HESSLA's restrictions are
unnecessary. The GNU GPL is sufficient protection against
privacy-violating features, because it ensures that someone can get the
source code, find the spyware feature, and publish an improved version
of the software which does not have the feature. Users can then switch
to that version if they don't want their personal information to be
reported.

As for restricting the use of the software by governments that violate
human rights, this is likely to be ineffective. There are many other
programs they can use. Also, at least under US law, a copyright-based
source license can't restrict use of the program; such a restriction is
not enforcible anyway. Meanwhile, they can simply decide they are exempt
from the restrictions.

On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:59:14 +1300, victor wrote:

> However it doesn't place any restrictions on usage. To do so would
> violate the core principles of free software.

Indeed it doesn't. surely nobody has suggested that it has.


> Some clues for you.
>
> Richard Stallman :

Dude, Richard Stallman WROTE the GPL and I think it is the best Free software license that has so far
been written - especially GPL 3!!

The GPL is a very clear, agreeable, and reasonable license. If you do
not like the terms of that license, then do not use the software that is licensed under those terms.


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"

Sweetpea wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:59:14 +1300, victor wrote:
>
>> However it doesn't place any restrictions on usage. To do so would
>> violate the core principles of free software.
>
> Indeed it doesn't. surely nobody has suggested that it has.
>
>
>> Some clues for you.
>>
>> Richard Stallman :
>
> Dude, Richard Stallman WROTE the GPL and I think it is the best Free software license that has so far
> been written - especially GPL 3!!
>
> The GPL is a very clear, agreeable, and reasonable license. If you do
> not like the terms of that license, then do not use the software that is licensed under those terms.
>
>


Anyone can use free software regardless of their opinions of the GPL,
noble and well intentioned though it may be.

You were stupid enough to claim

"Thus, any rights you may have to use that software for any purpose
are entirely governed by your compliance with the terms of the
license."

The GPL does not and cannot restrict usage under any circumstances, the
licence is only a copyright license.

Stallman gives good reasons why the GPL can ONLY cover copying and
distribution under copyright law.
To quote the FSF again.
"Also, at least under US law, a copyright-based source license can't
restrict use of the program; such a restriction is not enforcible anyway."

On 28/02/2010 12:53 p.m., Squiggle wrote:

>> On 28/02/2010 11:45 a.m., MaxLVB threw some characters down the intarwebs:

> EULAs (attempt to) restrict your rights below what is granted in the
> default case of no licence agreement (ie, standard copyright).

>> BS!!!!

> So you are trying to tell me this statement (from a Microsoft EULA) is
> not in anyway limiting your use of the software?

Yes.
When you comply with the EULA when using the software.

> 5. NO RENTAL/COMMERCIAL HOSTING. You may not rent, lease, lend or
> provide commercial hosting services with the Software."

>> No it doesn't. Because:

> Really? it says in plain English: You may not provide commercial
> hosting services with the software.


And you want to provide rental/commercial hosting right?

The EULA says you cant *WITH THE SOFTWARE* covered by that particular EULA.

If you want to provide rental/commercial hosting services then you will
have to, and CAN use software (and agree to it's EULA) that allows you
to do that.

Simple.

Whining that it limits your use of software outside of the terms and
conditions you agree to when you install the software when it
specifically says you cant in the usage contract is just so much BS!

As I said, if you dont agree with the terms and conditions of the EULA,
then you cant use the software covered by that EULA.
If you want to argue that (or any) clause of the EULA talk to the owner
of the software.

> "You may not" sure sounds like it is stopping me from using the software
> in a way in which I may have wanted to use the software, and the
> software is capable of doing. That is a restriction in the normal sense
> of the word.

It is. It's in the EULA. The contract you agreed to when you installed
the software.

However claiming that it is somehow stopping you from using the is BS.
You can continue to use it within the terms of the contract you agreed
to. You cant (legally) use it outside of the terms of the contract you
agreed to. (EULA)

>> A. I have to read and agree to the above condition BEFORE I install
>> and use the software.
>> If I dont agree to that condition then I dont get to use the software
>> (legally anyway)

> Maybe this will help you understand.

> If the software was not subject to the EULA term above,

But it is. You said so yourself.

> I could legally
> use it to host commercial websites.

Of course you could when it's not prevented in the EULA.

That's not a restriction on your use of the software. It's likely that
bought some software, didn't check that the software and usage contract
allowed you use the software for and are now whinging that MS is to
blame for your own mistake.

> But since the EULA includes that term I cannot.

Right. Now tell me again how that restricts you using the software?
It doesn't. It only restricts you from using the software OUTSIDE of the
terms of the EULA, thus breaching the contract you have with the owner
of the software.

If you want software for a specific task (lets say rental and commercial
hosting as an example) then buy software that *LEGALLY* allows that.

Your example (and claims) are BS.

> How can you say that
> the EULA has not limited/restricted how I can use the software when it
> plainly has?

Because it doesn't limit or restrict you using the software at all. It
just says you cant use it outside of the terms and conditions of
contract YOU agreed to.

>> Are you REALLY telling me I should be able to install software covered
>> by an EULA then be legally allowed to use it outside the terms and
>> conditions of the EULA I had already agreed to abide by? What sort of
>> bush lawyer thinking is that?

> Not at all,

Yeah you are.

> I am pointing out that the GPL does not restrict your use of
> software in any way, while (most/all?) EULAs do restrict your use of
> the software.

No they dont.

> The software the EULA term above is from is capable of
> being used to host a website, but the EULA restricts you from doing that.

Then agree to a LEGAL contract you the owner of the software that allows
you to do what you want it to do.

If you DONT like the terms and conditions for usage of ANY software,
then DONT use it, or argue your point with the owner of the software
that you want to change the usage contract BEFORE using it.

The point (that so often gets missed in these 'debates') is that an
EULA REQUIRES your legal agreement IN FULL before you can install and
use the software under the EULA terms and conditions.

>> The GPL requires NO AGREEMENT of the user of the software but
>> restricts the users right to redistribute the software without the
>> explicit agreement and conditions on the user.

> No, wrong. The GPL does not restrict you in anyway. Copyright law is
> what restricts your from copying and redistributing the code. The GPL
> grants you rights to copy and redistribute if you comply with the terms
> of the GPL. You need to grasp that distinction or you will continue to
> be confused as to what the GPL actually is.

And if I dont want to comply with the terms and conditions of the GPL
(like you dont think you should have to comply with the terms and
conditions of an EULA) what then?

That those GPL terms and conditions a re restricting me from what I want
to use the software for, like you're claiming the MS EULA does for you,
what then?

--


Found Images
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke

On 28/02/2010 6:01 p.m., MaxLVB threw some characters down the intarwebs:
> On 28/02/2010 12:53 p.m., Squiggle wrote:
>
>>> On 28/02/2010 11:45 a.m., MaxLVB threw some characters down the
>>> intarwebs:
>
>> EULAs (attempt to) restrict your rights below what is granted in the
>> default case of no licence agreement (ie, standard copyright).
>
>>> BS!!!!
>
>> So you are trying to tell me this statement (from a Microsoft EULA) is
>> not in anyway limiting your use of the software?
>
> Yes.
> When you comply with the EULA when using the software.

So when I comply with a big fat bunch of restrictions imposed by the
EULA, i'm not being restricted in anyway? That makes zero sense.

>
>> 5. NO RENTAL/COMMERCIAL HOSTING. You may not rent, lease, lend or
>> provide commercial hosting services with the Software."
>
>>> No it doesn't. Because:
>
>> Really? it says in plain English: You may not provide commercial
>> hosting services with the software.
>
>
> And you want to provide rental/commercial hosting right?
>
> The EULA says you cant *WITH THE SOFTWARE* covered by that particular
> EULA.

Exactly, it restricts what I can do with that software.


>
> If you want to provide rental/commercial hosting services then you
> will have to, and CAN use software (and agree to it's EULA) that
> allows you to do that.
>
> Simple.
>
> Whining that it limits your use of software outside of the terms and
> conditions you agree to when you install the software when it
> specifically says you cant in the usage contract is just so much BS!

Where did I ever say it limits it outside of the terms and conditions I
agreed to when i installed that software? Those terms and conditions
are the restrictions!

>
>> Maybe this will help you understand.
>
>> If the software was not subject to the EULA term above,
>
> But it is. You said so yourself.
>
>> I could legally
>> use it to host commercial websites.
>
> Of course you could when it's not prevented in the EULA.
>
> That's not a restriction on your use of the software.
>

Of course it ****ing is.

>
>> I am pointing out that the GPL does not restrict your use of
>> software in any way, while (most/all?) EULAs do restrict your use of
>> the software.
>
> No they dont.

Of course they do, they are full of terms that say you can not do XYZ.
Those are the bloody restrictions.

>
>>> The GPL requires NO AGREEMENT of the user of the software but
>>> restricts the users right to redistribute the software without the
>>> explicit agreement and conditions on the user.
>
>> No, wrong. The GPL does not restrict you in anyway. Copyright law is
>> what restricts your from copying and redistributing the code. The GPL
>> grants you rights to copy and redistribute if you comply with the terms
>> of the GPL. You need to grasp that distinction or you will continue to
>> be confused as to what the GPL actually is.
>
> And if I dont want to comply with the terms and conditions of the GPL
> (like you dont think you should have to comply with the terms and
> conditions of an EULA) what then?

Then don't copy the software. Use it all you want, but don't copy
it/distribute it or make derivative works from it.
And where have a said I shouldn't comply with the EULA if i have agreed
to it? I haven't, so stop making **** up.

I was just pointing out the the whole purpose of an EULA is to restrict
your use of the software in whatever ways the supplier wants to restrict
your use, whereas the GPL does not restrict your use of the software in
anyway at all.

>
> That those GPL terms and conditions a re restricting me from what I
> want to use the software for, like you're claiming the MS EULA does
> for you, what then?

As it states in the GPL, it does in no way stop you from using the software.
Feel free to quote whichever parts of the GPL you claim restrict your
use of the software. I won't hold my breath.

On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 17:43:39 +1300, victor wrote:

> Anyone can use free software regardless of their opinions of the GPL,
> noble and well intentioned though it may be.
>
> You were stupid enough to claim
>
> "Thus, any rights you may have to use that software for any purpose are
> entirely governed by your compliance with the terms of the license."
>
> The GPL does not and cannot restrict usage under any circumstances, the
> licence is only a copyright license.

You are clearly and obviously as completely moronic as your name sounds.

If _you_ do not comply with the terms of the license under which _you_ copied it onto your computer,
then _you_ by your non-compliance to the terms of the license that, amongst other rights, gave you the
right to copy it onto your computer all the rights granted you by the GPL are instantly revoked.

So, if, having installed it onto your computer, you modify that software and distribute to someone else
but do not make the modified source code also available under the GPL then you are in violation of the
terms of the license that gives you the right to modify the software!


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"

Sweetpea wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 17:43:39 +1300, victor wrote:
>
>> Anyone can use free software regardless of their opinions of the GPL,
>> noble and well intentioned though it may be.
>>
>> You were stupid enough to claim
>>
>> "Thus, any rights you may have to use that software for any purpose are
>> entirely governed by your compliance with the terms of the license."
>>
>> The GPL does not and cannot restrict usage under any circumstances, the
>> licence is only a copyright license.
>

<Irrelevant blathering snipped>

Peabrain
The right to use free software is completely independent of the GPL.

On 28/02/2010 7:35 p.m., Squiggle wrote:
>> On 28/02/2010 6:01 p.m., MaxLVB threw some characters down the intarwebs:
>> That those GPL terms and conditions a re restricting me from what I
>> want to use the software for, like you're claiming the MS EULA does
>> for you, what then?

> As it states in the GPL, it does in no way stop you from using the software.
> Feel free to quote whichever parts of the GPL you claim restrict your
> use of the software. I won't hold my breath.

The GPL says I cant use the software in any way I like without complying
with the GPL.
Like distribute it in any way I see fit unless and until I include the
requirements (restrictions) imposed by the GPL and/or copyright.

Yeah I know it's a stupid argument, but it's the exact same argument
you're making about the Microsoft EULA you're quoting.

You cant *LEGALLY* to use software outside of the terms and conditions
of the contract *YOU* agreed to any more than I can, no matter how much
you whine and bitch you're being restricted in using the software.

You're not restricted (read this bit CAREFULLY) when you use it as per
the contract *YOU* agreed to when installing the software.

Anything you want to do with the software OUTSIDE of the contract YOU
agreed to is irrelevant, Illegal, and just bush lawyer whining on your part.

You done yet?

--


Found Images
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke

On 28/02/2010 9:58 p.m., MaxLVB threw some characters down the intarwebs:
> On 28/02/2010 7:35 p.m., Squiggle wrote:
>>> On 28/02/2010 6:01 p.m., MaxLVB threw some characters down the
>>> intarwebs:
>>> That those GPL terms and conditions a re restricting me from what I
>>> want to use the software for, like you're claiming the MS EULA does
>>> for you, what then?
>
>> As it states in the GPL, it does in no way stop you from using the
>> software.
>> Feel free to quote whichever parts of the GPL you claim restrict your
>> use of the software. I won't hold my breath.
>
> The GPL says I cant use the software in any way I like without
> complying with the GPL.

And the section that does that is which bit? Come on, you've made the
claim, now back it up with some evidence. Or admit you are wrong.


> Like distribute it in any way I see fit unless and until I include the
> requirements (restrictions) imposed by the GPL and/or copyright.
>

You never had that right in the first place, so the GPL hasn't
restricted anything. The GPL grants you rights to copy and distribute,
it does not restrict you.


If I sent you some code I had written and did not include a licence or
contract of any sort, you would have the exact same rights to *use* the
software as you would if I had sent it to you under the GPL. You'd just
have no right to copy or distribute it.

> Yeah I know it's a stupid argument, but it's the exact same argument
> you're making about the Microsoft EULA you're quoting.
>
> You're not restricted (read this bit CAREFULLY) when you use it as per
> the contract *YOU* agreed to when installing the software.

No **** sherlock, and I have never said I was. Read this slowly and
carefully "The EULA is the restriction(s)." Its the set of
restrictions you have to agree to to use the software legally. It still
is a set of restrictions. End of story. That is why they make you
agree to it when you install the software (Although it should be done
before you pay for the software. Its strange how the ICT industry is the
only one where the restrictions are imposed after the sale is made),
because it is restricting your use of the software.

Whereas the GPL you do not need to agree with, as it is not restricting
your rights in anyway. It even says so right in the text of the GPL.

On Feb 28, 10:26*am, MaxLVB <MaxLV...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> It's laughable that there are so many different opinions about what the
> GPL can and cant do, while anyone of us can legally buy and use the code
> embedded in hardware that does not comply with any of the claims being
> made about 'the GPL' in this forum.

So what is the problem, then?

I just think that you and 'Impossible' want to whine about the GPL
because you have a thing about it.

'Impossible' decided to have a troll to start with and it all
snowballed from there. You then joined in waffling on about things
you do not understand, and are now complaining when the whole lot
turned to custard round your ears.

Before buying a modem, router, etc, why not ask the retailer if he has
a model that contains proprietary code. Someone surely must make them
using Microsoft Windows CE. If not why do you not ask your old mate
Bill to oblige. You will then have much better piece of mind.