Originally posted by Vim_User
View Post
You don't get it, don't you? I still say that Canonical can tie the usage of their servers to any license they want. That is the point.
When they tie the license to the usage of the servers, not the usage of the binaries, they can do whatever they want, there is no GPL violation. That is exactly why we need to know what that license actually contains before we can make conclusions.
But once you do distribute the binaries, you're not allowed to place extra terms on the use of that software. And that's the problem here. You're not allowed to restrict how that software is used.
That is exactly what I said, but that doesn't prevent you from claiming GPL violations.
Fun question: If that is so clear and there is no ambiguity in it, why does Clem not just tell the world about this attempt to violate the GPL. Why does he negotiate instead about the amount of money he has to spend. Doesn't really make sense, I would think.
And he is right. But the question still remains, when this is about licensing the packages, not access to the servers, why is he negotiasting about money instead of showing the world how Canonical breaks the GPL? Because he can't maybe? Because there is no GPL violation?
Fun question: If that is so clear and there is no ambiguity in it, why does Clem not just tell the world about this attempt to violate the GPL. Why does he negotiate instead about the amount of money he has to spend. Doesn't really make sense, I would think.
And he is right. But the question still remains, when this is about licensing the packages, not access to the servers, why is he negotiasting about money instead of showing the world how Canonical breaks the GPL? Because he can't maybe? Because there is no GPL violation?
Guess what: Without knowing the actual license text we can't know and there is no point at all for anyone who has not read that text to jump to any conclusions and openly claim that there is a GPL violation.
Honestly, I wish you would think after reading the OP, not wildly jump to the conclusion that fits the most in your hypocritical world view.
Honestly, I wish you would think after reading the OP, not wildly jump to the conclusion that fits the most in your hypocritical world view.
It is also clearly stated in Clem's post that he does not refuse to negotiate about the license, instead he negotiates about the amount of money he has to pay, which clearly indicates that he takes the license serious. Why again should he do that if he thinks that the license is not valid?
Let's go for another fun question: Why is it a GPL violation to restrict access to binary servers when Canonical does it, but not when Red Hat does exactly the same,
Restricting access to binary servers is not the problem, nor is it a GPL violation. That's not the problem here. Canonical is not simply saying "you're not allowed to use our servers". If they did, it'd be easily solved by just using any of the dozens of mirrors available. If they did, that'd be fine and entirely allowed by the GPL.
The problem is when Canonical wants to dictate how Mint is allowed to use the software, what Mint is allowed to do as a distribution. The quote from Clem states clearly, that the licensing aims to restrict what Mint can and can't do, mostly in relation to the OEM market. And that is clearly against the GPL.
but even for more money on a per-machine basis? You know why? Because there is no GPL violation. The GPL does not in any form regulate how access to the servers that host binary packages can be restricted or not, except for that part in the GPL 3 you cite and that funnily exactly tells you what I am saying:
And you call other people pathetic when you can't even read what you yourself are bringing as argument into the discussion?
Charging for it is fine. Adding extra restrictions, dictating what others may do with the software, not fine.
Which means nothing more than: If you provide binaries you must adhere to the license. Which says in the passage you cited that you can charge for binaries. I wonder why I type so much text for you, you are actually very good in refuting yourself.
Of course, and again, the license allows you to charge for that, as you have shown us.
Of course, and again, the license allows you to charge for that, as you have shown us.
Please. You show us the very passages of the license that tell you that you are wrong, but others can't admit that they were wrong?
Funnily, you provide sources and don't seem to understand them. As you have shown us, the GPL 3 clearly states that you can charge for the binaries. And it says nothing about restricting access to the servers that host those binaries, otherwise Red Hat would be guilty of exactly the same violations. Now we have the legal department of Red Hat and that of Canonical against your claims. If that is appeal to authority then yes, I am guilty. But it also shows again your hypocrisy. Canonical is evil (and there sometimes are), for them it is a violation, Red Hat is good, they are allowed to do the exact same thing.
So in order to maintain good relations with Canonical Clem collaborates with them in violating the GPL? He accepts this violation (again, if there even is one)? That is exactly what you are saying here and shows us what your opinion on the integrity of this man is.
Besides, even if Clem accepts Canonical's licensing/terms, he would not be violating the GPL, because GPL places no obligation to the recipient, the obligation of compliance rests entirely on the shoulders of the distributor. You don't even have to accept the GPL license in order to use or receive GPL-licensed software. Only if you want to distribute/convey/propagate it yourself. If Canonical is violating the GPL when distributing the software, the violation is Canonical's only, the recipient (ie. Mint) is not in violation, even if they accept Canonical's licensing terms. Here's GPLv3 for you again:
Originally posted by GPLv3
Originally posted by GPLv3
Again it seems you have stopped midways and not thought to the end.
Comment