Thread: Qt "stuck" at v5.6 in SFOS
View Single Post
javispedro's Avatar
javispedro is offline javispedro
2021-03-29 , 12:46
Posts: 2,355 | Thanked: 5,249 times | Joined on Jan 2009 @ Barcelona
#46
Originally Posted by olf View Post
Yes, but why don't you just read the source you quoted, its definition proper (and first sentence!) [...]
But its wording is very colloquially ("holds something in hand"), hence imprecise, and it consistently (also in the examples) adds the irrelevant aspect that that entity may also be the owner.
The main problem here is that people tend to accompany definitions with examples precisely in order to clarify these definitions, and at this point we have at least two different sources (the GPLv3 FAQ itself, and Wikipedia -- the latter arguably not worth much) with multiple examples that directly contradict your position, and instead agree with mine.

Originally Posted by olf View Post
A brief and concise source for separating these rights properly is the "Updated November 4, 2020" paragraph here (the remainder of the article is only about property rights).
If you want to read for hours (it is really interesting): This site explains the basic terms and concepts, commonalities and differences of British, US-American, French and German law. But you will not find a significant difference WRT these fundamental terms and concepts, as they all root in Roman law.
Finally, sources!!!

So it is a "local" thing... do note that there is no "possession" vs "ownership" as separate words neither in France nor in Spain at least, and while the concepts are there, the word equivalent to "possession" is actually closest to "ownership" as the ultimate superset of rights.

But I see the concern nonetheless.

Originally Posted by olf View Post
As you seem to be quite emotional about this topic, you may expect others to be equally emotional about the GPLv3.
... sigh. What did you expect on this forum, really? That most of us who came here did it only because of the colorfulness of the Nokia tune? This forum is all full of free software fanatics because one of the biggest draws of these devices where that they were running way more free software than anything else in existence. At least at that point.

And by the way I do not know what you expect to gain from repeating things like that on every post. You have been hammering your agenda since post #1:

Originally Posted by olf View Post
the *GPLv3s have become what they are: troublesome nonsense.

Originally Posted by olf View Post
Sand to "device owner" specifically for the "Anti-TiVo section" was brought to the FSF's attention in the GPLv3 consultation process (ca. 15 years ago).
Source?
Or are you saying _you_ brought it to their attention?

Not to mention that "licensee" is actually an even more complicated definition......

Originally Posted by olf View Post
Thus "it is what it is", including its properties which make *GPLv3 software unsuitable for use cases, in which the software user in possession of a device (on which this software runs) is not the owner of that device.
So again let me summarize your point of view:
You think that lending a device with GPLv3 software requires distribution of source code, encryption keys, etc. in order to comply with the GPLv3 requirements.
You think that the authors of the GPLv3 have done this explicitly, by making deliberately confusing definitions in the license text.
You also think that the authors of the GPLv3 are further lying by misrepresenting the stated goals of the GPLv3 in the supporting materials such as the preamble or the FAQs vs the actual license.
You also think that they are doing this misrepresentation deliberately to support some agenda.

Forgive me if I have difficulties believing that.
Even less when about half of the other assertions you have been making on this thread were gross exaggerations or false.
Last edited by javispedro; 2021-03-29 at 13:25.
 

The Following User Says Thank You to javispedro For This Useful Post: