Thread: Qt "stuck" at v5.6 in SFOS
View Single Post
olf's Avatar
olf is offline olf
2021-03-26 , 01:24
Posts: 304 | Thanked: 1,246 times | Joined on Aug 2015
#40
Originally Posted by javispedro View Post
Let's keep the namecalling!
Yes, Mr. Ballistic.

Originally Posted by javispedro
[...] Sure, you're not the first one to call me troll
Guess why?
Hint: I provided you with a list.

Originally Posted by javispedro
(not the first one to retract, either), [...]
Oh, that seems to have been premature.


To reply to your technical points.
Side note: Nice to see how even obvious things are overlooked when one goes ballistic (happens to me, too).

Originally Posted by javispedro
I still think it is an absurd argument: I don't know of anyone else doing it that way, and it leads to a conclusion that directly contradicts the GPLv3 FAQ itself, in addition to other, more absurd conclusions (e.g. , why would the Affero clause be needed if mere "users" of the work are already entitled to the source?).
Because using a software online does not include the necessary "transfer of the right of possession" to become a "user" in the sense of GPLv3 and LGPLv3.
To cover exactly this extra case ("online use") is why the AGPL was created.

Originally Posted by javispedro
You prefixed it with "Dutch", as if hinting that it was a story that really happened in this world.
Oh yes, I was given an Android tablet and wired headsets when purchasing the "multimedia guide" variant of an entrance ticket to a Dutch art museum.
This would have been legally impossible without granting me full control over the device, if then software stack would have been based on *GPLv3 components.
As I wrote, just a simple example, you love to sidetrack into.

Originally Posted by javispedro
And you mentioned other examples (such as the GPLv3 being incompatible with ATMs because, according to you, users of the ATM would be entitled to the encryption keys of the machine, apparently), which are even more far-fetched, and that I didn't pursue.
Correctly so, as you pointed out, because that does not include the "transfer of the right of possession" of a software in source or binary form, which is necessary to become a "*GPLv3 user".
The "transfer of the right to use" alone is not sufficient.

As discussed, logically the same is true for "ticket machines", "information points" all other fixed device installations.
So I already agreed to and adopted this counterargument of yours.
That is why I remembered that I experienced a case, where also the "transfer of right of possession" happened: the "Dutch museum tablet".


I seriously have to thank you for helping me (WRT GPLv3) to
  • sharpen my arguments
  • look up proper references (which included rereading the GPLv3 for the Nth time)
  • sort out incorrect examples (i.e., fixed device installations)
  • use the correct terms for underlying, basic legal constructs: "transfer of the right of possession", "transfer of the right to use" and (not applicable / not necessary for the *GPLv3) "transfer of the ownership"
  • etc.
Last edited by olf; 2021-03-26 at 03:58.
 

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