Open source does not mean free, it can have a proprietary license.
Free software means that you have the right to use and modify the software as long as you make your changes available, and in the case of agpl, make available the software running on your service so that others have the ability to host their own instance.
>Free software means that you have the right to use and modify the software as long as you make your changes available, and in the case of agpl, make available the software running on your service so that others have the ability to host their own instance.
That's just copyleft. Most free software use sane license like MIT and grant you freedom to use it for whatever purpose you want.
Open source does not mean free, it can have a proprietary license.
Free software means that you have the right to use and modify the software as long as you make your changes available, and in the case of agpl, make available the software running on your service so that others have the ability to host their own instance.
>This is the major problem with Free & open source software.
Why is this a problem? The point of copyleft licenses was to forbid anyone from making changes they do not want to share. If someone just puts the software to the cloud then they do not change it in any way. There is literally nothing user loses by someone using the software on their server.
Or was this whole four essential freedoms just bullshit and it's all about forbidding these you don't like from using the software? Because if that's the thing then this whole "freedom" is a lie. Why not just use a proprietary license that forbids commercial use if people making money from the software is the problem?
The point of the GPL is to ensure the "four freedoms" (run, study, share, modify) for the end user.
Cloud software takes every single one of those freedoms away.
7 days ago
Anonymous
>Cloud software takes every single one of those freedoms away.
How exactly?
7 days ago
Anonymous
Can I run Google Search on my own server?
Can I study their code?
Can I share their code?
Can I modify their code?
7 days ago
Anonymous
>Can I run Google Search on my own server?
Google Search is proprietary. It never provided any of these freedoms.
>Can I study their code? >Can I share their code? >Can I modify their code?
No. You also can't do that on someone's else desktop or server either. Why does putting the software on cloud is a problem but people putting that software on their server or desktop is not a problem? You can't modify or share code I have on my computer either, even if it's from copyleft licensed project.
It would be a security nightmare if anyone could inspect someone's else computer to look at their code.
7 days ago
Anonymous
>Google Search is proprietary. It never provided any of these freedoms.
Exactly.
And even though it is proprietary and denies you the four freedoms they can base it on modified GPL software.
Only Affero protects against that.
7 days ago
Anonymous
>And even though it is proprietary and denies you the four freedoms they can base it on modified GPL software.
And why is that a problem? Google Search is a proprietary project from start. It never took away any of the freedoms from you because it never granted them, it never was foss.
That's like saying anyone should be able to access your computer and look into your private projects because you run some GPL software on it.
Literally the very first essential freedom states: "The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose". But you want to take away that freedom?
7 days ago
Anonymous
>And why is that a problem?
Because that goes directly against the point of the GPL?
>That's like saying anyone should be able to access your computer and look into your private projects because you run some GPL
How? I don't use someone's private projects. They're not part of my life in any way.
But I do use cloud services like Google.
7 days ago
Anonymous
>Because that goes directly against the point of the GPL?
Google Search was never licensed under GPL, it doesn't have to uphold GPL points. >How? I don't use someone's private projects. They're not part of my life in any way.
Neither is Google Search.
7 days ago
Anonymous
>Google Search was never licensed under GPL, it doesn't have to uphold GPL points.
How do you know that the Google Search doesn't use any GPL software?
7 days ago
Anonymous
I don't know. They mostly likely use and they have right to do so according to the first freedom. They can use GPL software for any purpose they wish.
What is forbidden is sharing modified versions of GPL software without source code.
7 days ago
Anonymous
And that's the problem and why the AGPL was created.
7 days ago
Anonymous
>Google Search was never licensed under GPL
Then just say you think nothing is wrong with proprietary software instead of pretending to.
>Google Search was never licensed under GPL, it doesn't have to uphold GPL points.
How do you know that the Google Search doesn't use any GPL software?
We know for a fact that they do, like the linux kernel.
7 days ago
Anonymous
>Then just say you think nothing is wrong with proprietary software instead of pretending to.
Regardless of whenever I like or don't like proprietary, Google Search was never released under GPL. Facts do not care about feelings you know.
7 days ago
Anonymous
>And why is that a problem?
It's a problem for the same reasons proprietary software is a problem. > a proprietary project from start
Doesn't matter, it still doesn't grant you the freedoms. It takes them away from you when you use it.
> "The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose". But you want to take away that freedom?
If you're talking about GPL and free software, not sharing the source code is NOT covered under "any purpose".
When you use a service, especially proprietary, you do not have this freedom though. You are still the user of the software, on their machine, but you don't have any rights at all. You have much more power over proprietary software running on your own machine.
>Google Search is proprietary. It never provided any of these freedoms.
Exactly.
And even though it is proprietary and denies you the four freedoms they can base it on modified GPL software.
Only Affero protects against that.
Yep.
The problem is where the boundary between programs is drawn. It's legal to use a GPL2 code as a dependency in proprietary programs as long as you don't modify that GPL code, but GPL has no effect because code is now extremely modular and making it a service is more abusive than just proprietary software.
7 days ago
Anonymous
>The problem is where the boundary between programs is drawn. It's legal to use a GPL2 code as a dependency in proprietary programs as long as you don't modify that GPL code
No it isn't.
That's only legal with LGPL. And only if the LGPL'd part is in a clearly separated component like a shared library.
7 days ago
Anonymous
You can, with GPL2 as well, for example make your proprietary software depend on the linux kernel or other core utils. But you're right it cannot use GPL libraries mostly.
You can do an android and distribute your OS using mostly GPL2 code but make parts required to function (drivers & app store + services) proprietary.
Or you can do tivoization to work around it.
7 days ago
Anonymous
>It's a problem for the same reasons proprietary software is a problem.
And that has nothing to do with GPL. You are basically saying that proprietary software is bad because it doesn't grant you four essential freedoms. I totally agree with that, but this is irrelevant to whenever they use GPL software to run their cloud service. You also probably use some GPL software on your computer but I don't think you want to share all your code because of that.
>Doesn't matter, it still doesn't grant you the freedoms. It takes them away from you when you use it.
It doesn't take away any freedoms from you because you never had them.
>If you're talking about GPL and free software, not sharing the source code is NOT covered under "any purpose".
It's also not forbidden. The only thing that is forbidden is distributing modified software without providing its source. They do not do that. They literally just made a new service and put it on their server. They might or might not use some GPL software to run it but they do not distribute any modified GPL software or any GPL software, so it's not like you are getting a modified software without a source code. It literally is no different from you using GPL software on your computer. Just because you use GPL software on your computer or server or cloud, doesn't mean you should be forced to share all the code you run on there.
You are not sharing any GPL software, you are not distributing any modifications to it, you are literally just running it to for your own purpose. Forbidding others from running the GPL software to provide a proprietary service goes against the first essential freedom. You should be able to run it for whatever purpose you wish.
>When you use a service, especially proprietary, you do not have this freedom though...
Google Search is not GPL software, it is not bound to provide any freedoms.
7 days ago
Anonymous
>You are basically saying that proprietary software is bad because it doesn't grant you four essential freedoms. I totally agree with that >It doesn't take away any freedoms from you because you never had them.
Then you don't agree that proprietary software is bad. You had them before you used google, they are god-given/natural rights. Just like if you're born into a country where it's illegal you to walk, just because THEY never granted you the right doesn't mean that they aren't taking it away.
>It's also not forbidden. The only thing that is forbidden is distributing modified software without providing its source.
Yes indeed. It's a problem and loophole with GPL.
> It literally is no different from you using GPL software on your computer.
It's very different because I'm the user of the software on my machine, google is not the user(s) of their software, we are.
>Then just say you think nothing is wrong with proprietary software instead of pretending to.
Regardless of whenever I like or don't like proprietary, Google Search was never released under GPL. Facts do not care about feelings you know.
>Google Search was never released under GPL
No one said that it was. You're straw-manning and defending proprietary software.
It's very simple. If you accept that free software is good because they user has the right to use and run it as they wish, and that proprietary software is bad because it does not grant those rights then you must accept that "cloud services" are even worse then proprietary software because it grants you, the user, those rights even less.
The user is the person actually using the software, not the person happening to be owning/renting the computer it is ran on.
7 days ago
Anonymous
>>You are basically saying that proprietary software is bad because it doesn't grant you four essential freedoms. I totally agree with that >>It doesn't take away any freedoms from you because you never had them. >Then you don't agree that proprietary software is bad.
Not grant =/= take away
I do not grant you freedom to look into files on my computer. That doesn't mean I take your freedom away, you never had it in the first place.
>You had them before you used google, they are god-given/natural rights
I never had rights to look into Google Search's code. Any notion of god-given or natural is just a buzzword.
>Just like if you're born into a country where it's illegal you to walk, just because THEY never granted you the right doesn't mean that they aren't taking it away.
You can argue it takes away your human rights, but not that they take away any rights they gave you if they haven't gave you any.
>Yes indeed. It's a problem and loophole with GPL.
It's only a loophole if your motivation to choose GPL wasn't to actually grant freedom but to limit commercial use. If you want the latter, you can just use a nonfree license that goes against the first freedom and prevents people from just using the software for commercial use unless they share the source code.
>It's very different because I'm the user of the software on my machine, google is not the user(s) of their software, we are.
That's if you use your computer to only consume stuff. If you have own server or even just host a game server, then others can be the users of your computer as well.
>This is the major problem with Free & open source software.
Why is this a problem? The point of copyleft licenses was to forbid anyone from making changes they do not want to share. If someone just puts the software to the cloud then they do not change it in any way. There is literally nothing user loses by someone using the software on their server.
Or was this whole four essential freedoms just bullshit and it's all about forbidding these you don't like from using the software? Because if that's the thing then this whole "freedom" is a lie. Why not just use a proprietary license that forbids commercial use if people making money from the software is the problem?
The point of the GPL is to ensure the "four freedoms" (run, study, share, modify) for the end user.
Cloud software takes every single one of those freedoms away.
License your software as SSPL to solve all problems.
Sue for copyright infringement
They own that software for 170+ years >Linus Torvalds dies >His children sell the Linux kernel to Microsoft >Linux now becomes proprietary
Very real possible scenario
Impossible. Every developer who has contributed to the Linux kernel is also a copyright holder. That's part of why Linux will never be GPLv3, because then you would have to get permission from every single contributor.
>Sue for copyright infringement
that requires:
1) a job
2) knowing who you are, like PRECISELY who you are
3) not being like 6 countries away from you, this compounds with #2 to make it practically impossible for them to court order your ISP to dox you, except if they don't even have your IP anyway they're even further behind!
I only say this because I've known victims of the exact situation I mentioned in the past. "Haha you can't sue me" is an extremely potent defence if they don't half ass it. Best you can do is just harass whatever site its being hosted on to delete the content off it, but you won't be suing random internet people so easily, especially not ones who you can't court order the IPs off of to court order the ISPs for dox. (i.e: uses tor)
Doesn't matter, linux is already controlled by FAGMAN, the biggest users are FAGMAN. And they use linux to take away as much control from users as possible.
Once a version of FOSS software is released under a license, it is under that license forever. You can't retroactively retract a license. The most they could do is get all future versions of Linux to be under a proprietary license.
>Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
There are really two questions here. >am I allowed to use FOSS in a commercial webapp?
In many cases, yes. You obviously need to carefully review the exact licensing situation for each project you make use of. >when the license terms DON'T allow it, can I do so anyway and get away with it?
Maybe. Depends how easy it is to prove, who owns the code, how high profile you are, whether the case is juicy enough for organisations like the EFF to be interested, and other factors.
>No one said that it was. You're straw-manning and defending proprietary software.
You said "Because that goes directly against the point of the GPL?" implying that Google Search should be a subject to the point of GPL, but it doesn't because it's not a GPL software.
>It's very simple. If you accept that free software is good because...
Oh yeah, they are worse than free software. But my personal judgment doesn't mean they are somehow supposed to follow ideology behind some random license they don't use.
This is the very nature of freedom, even beyond software. You might grant freedoms to others because of some virtuous principles but to be free means to not have these principles forced onto you. Eg, if you fight for freedom of speech, even if it's to fight tyrannical censor-happy government, you have to accept that some people will use that freedom of speech to call you a homosexual. But that's fine, because having a choice, having freedom is always better than the opposite. That's why I support free software and I believe that anyone should be able to use both code and software for any purpose they wish, even if that purpose is not something I personally consider a good or ethical.
>The user is the person actually using the software, not the person happening to be owning/renting the computer it is ran on.
If I decided to run Windows Server on my server then it's only me who needs license for it. Not everyone who uses a service I am using on it. Your definition of the user is so weird you'd be a user of thousands of different piece of software just by making a single internet request because internet is that interconnected, it would basically be impossible to tell who uses who. Nah, I do not think it makes sense to say that if someone's connect to a http server I host on my machine then they are the users of my operating system, database and other stuff. They are the users of my http server, and I am the user of the infrastructure that I use to provide that server.
depends on the license
Open source does not mean free, it can have a proprietary license.
Free software means that you have the right to use and modify the software as long as you make your changes available, and in the case of agpl, make available the software running on your service so that others have the ability to host their own instance.
>Free software means that you have the right to use and modify the software as long as you make your changes available, and in the case of agpl, make available the software running on your service so that others have the ability to host their own instance.
That's just copyleft. Most free software use sane license like MIT and grant you freedom to use it for whatever purpose you want.
>and no one can tell me to stop?
If you break license you can get sued.
But they don't have access to my code
If your argument is that "they won't find out" then go ahead, just remember that you're opening yourself up to pretty significant liability
I mean it's so hard to prove that someone stole code, I can get GPT4 to rewrite a shit ton, even using different packages.
if it’s server side it’s all above board as long as they don’t have an AGPL license or similar
This is the major problem with Free & open source software.
Software as a service and "cloud" computing is much much worse than proprietary software.
So now giant monopolies use free software to make millions while affording the user even less control than the most proprietary software.
Meanwhile as a small time software dev, I'm not allowed to give my customers a simple static binary that uses an unmodified LGPL library.
>This is the major problem with Free & open source software.
Why is this a problem? The point of copyleft licenses was to forbid anyone from making changes they do not want to share. If someone just puts the software to the cloud then they do not change it in any way. There is literally nothing user loses by someone using the software on their server.
Or was this whole four essential freedoms just bullshit and it's all about forbidding these you don't like from using the software? Because if that's the thing then this whole "freedom" is a lie. Why not just use a proprietary license that forbids commercial use if people making money from the software is the problem?
The point of the GPL is to ensure the "four freedoms" (run, study, share, modify) for the end user.
Cloud software takes every single one of those freedoms away.
>Cloud software takes every single one of those freedoms away.
How exactly?
Can I run Google Search on my own server?
Can I study their code?
Can I share their code?
Can I modify their code?
>Can I run Google Search on my own server?
Google Search is proprietary. It never provided any of these freedoms.
>Can I study their code?
>Can I share their code?
>Can I modify their code?
No. You also can't do that on someone's else desktop or server either. Why does putting the software on cloud is a problem but people putting that software on their server or desktop is not a problem? You can't modify or share code I have on my computer either, even if it's from copyleft licensed project.
It would be a security nightmare if anyone could inspect someone's else computer to look at their code.
>Google Search is proprietary. It never provided any of these freedoms.
Exactly.
And even though it is proprietary and denies you the four freedoms they can base it on modified GPL software.
Only Affero protects against that.
>And even though it is proprietary and denies you the four freedoms they can base it on modified GPL software.
And why is that a problem? Google Search is a proprietary project from start. It never took away any of the freedoms from you because it never granted them, it never was foss.
That's like saying anyone should be able to access your computer and look into your private projects because you run some GPL software on it.
Literally the very first essential freedom states: "The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose". But you want to take away that freedom?
>And why is that a problem?
Because that goes directly against the point of the GPL?
>That's like saying anyone should be able to access your computer and look into your private projects because you run some GPL
How? I don't use someone's private projects. They're not part of my life in any way.
But I do use cloud services like Google.
>Because that goes directly against the point of the GPL?
Google Search was never licensed under GPL, it doesn't have to uphold GPL points.
>How? I don't use someone's private projects. They're not part of my life in any way.
Neither is Google Search.
>Google Search was never licensed under GPL, it doesn't have to uphold GPL points.
How do you know that the Google Search doesn't use any GPL software?
I don't know. They mostly likely use and they have right to do so according to the first freedom. They can use GPL software for any purpose they wish.
What is forbidden is sharing modified versions of GPL software without source code.
And that's the problem and why the AGPL was created.
>Google Search was never licensed under GPL
Then just say you think nothing is wrong with proprietary software instead of pretending to.
We know for a fact that they do, like the linux kernel.
>Then just say you think nothing is wrong with proprietary software instead of pretending to.
Regardless of whenever I like or don't like proprietary, Google Search was never released under GPL. Facts do not care about feelings you know.
>And why is that a problem?
It's a problem for the same reasons proprietary software is a problem.
> a proprietary project from start
Doesn't matter, it still doesn't grant you the freedoms. It takes them away from you when you use it.
> "The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose". But you want to take away that freedom?
If you're talking about GPL and free software, not sharing the source code is NOT covered under "any purpose".
When you use a service, especially proprietary, you do not have this freedom though. You are still the user of the software, on their machine, but you don't have any rights at all. You have much more power over proprietary software running on your own machine.
Yep.
The problem is where the boundary between programs is drawn. It's legal to use a GPL2 code as a dependency in proprietary programs as long as you don't modify that GPL code, but GPL has no effect because code is now extremely modular and making it a service is more abusive than just proprietary software.
>The problem is where the boundary between programs is drawn. It's legal to use a GPL2 code as a dependency in proprietary programs as long as you don't modify that GPL code
No it isn't.
That's only legal with LGPL. And only if the LGPL'd part is in a clearly separated component like a shared library.
You can, with GPL2 as well, for example make your proprietary software depend on the linux kernel or other core utils. But you're right it cannot use GPL libraries mostly.
You can do an android and distribute your OS using mostly GPL2 code but make parts required to function (drivers & app store + services) proprietary.
Or you can do tivoization to work around it.
>It's a problem for the same reasons proprietary software is a problem.
And that has nothing to do with GPL. You are basically saying that proprietary software is bad because it doesn't grant you four essential freedoms. I totally agree with that, but this is irrelevant to whenever they use GPL software to run their cloud service. You also probably use some GPL software on your computer but I don't think you want to share all your code because of that.
>Doesn't matter, it still doesn't grant you the freedoms. It takes them away from you when you use it.
It doesn't take away any freedoms from you because you never had them.
>If you're talking about GPL and free software, not sharing the source code is NOT covered under "any purpose".
It's also not forbidden. The only thing that is forbidden is distributing modified software without providing its source. They do not do that. They literally just made a new service and put it on their server. They might or might not use some GPL software to run it but they do not distribute any modified GPL software or any GPL software, so it's not like you are getting a modified software without a source code. It literally is no different from you using GPL software on your computer. Just because you use GPL software on your computer or server or cloud, doesn't mean you should be forced to share all the code you run on there.
You are not sharing any GPL software, you are not distributing any modifications to it, you are literally just running it to for your own purpose. Forbidding others from running the GPL software to provide a proprietary service goes against the first essential freedom. You should be able to run it for whatever purpose you wish.
>When you use a service, especially proprietary, you do not have this freedom though...
Google Search is not GPL software, it is not bound to provide any freedoms.
>You are basically saying that proprietary software is bad because it doesn't grant you four essential freedoms. I totally agree with that
>It doesn't take away any freedoms from you because you never had them.
Then you don't agree that proprietary software is bad. You had them before you used google, they are god-given/natural rights. Just like if you're born into a country where it's illegal you to walk, just because THEY never granted you the right doesn't mean that they aren't taking it away.
>It's also not forbidden. The only thing that is forbidden is distributing modified software without providing its source.
Yes indeed. It's a problem and loophole with GPL.
> It literally is no different from you using GPL software on your computer.
It's very different because I'm the user of the software on my machine, google is not the user(s) of their software, we are.
>Google Search was never released under GPL
No one said that it was. You're straw-manning and defending proprietary software.
It's very simple. If you accept that free software is good because they user has the right to use and run it as they wish, and that proprietary software is bad because it does not grant those rights then you must accept that "cloud services" are even worse then proprietary software because it grants you, the user, those rights even less.
The user is the person actually using the software, not the person happening to be owning/renting the computer it is ran on.
>>You are basically saying that proprietary software is bad because it doesn't grant you four essential freedoms. I totally agree with that
>>It doesn't take away any freedoms from you because you never had them.
>Then you don't agree that proprietary software is bad.
Not grant =/= take away
I do not grant you freedom to look into files on my computer. That doesn't mean I take your freedom away, you never had it in the first place.
>You had them before you used google, they are god-given/natural rights
I never had rights to look into Google Search's code. Any notion of god-given or natural is just a buzzword.
>Just like if you're born into a country where it's illegal you to walk, just because THEY never granted you the right doesn't mean that they aren't taking it away.
You can argue it takes away your human rights, but not that they take away any rights they gave you if they haven't gave you any.
>Yes indeed. It's a problem and loophole with GPL.
It's only a loophole if your motivation to choose GPL wasn't to actually grant freedom but to limit commercial use. If you want the latter, you can just use a nonfree license that goes against the first freedom and prevents people from just using the software for commercial use unless they share the source code.
>It's very different because I'm the user of the software on my machine, google is not the user(s) of their software, we are.
That's if you use your computer to only consume stuff. If you have own server or even just host a game server, then others can be the users of your computer as well.
License your software as SSPL to solve all problems.
I just use MIT because I want people to be actually free to use my software however they wish.
>"if you use this code, please credit me ;)"
>don't credit them
tf they gonna do, take it back?
Sue for copyright infringement
They own that software for 170+ years
>Linus Torvalds dies
>His children sell the Linux kernel to Microsoft
>Linux now becomes proprietary
Very real possible scenario
Impossible. Every developer who has contributed to the Linux kernel is also a copyright holder. That's part of why Linux will never be GPLv3, because then you would have to get permission from every single contributor.
>Linux is forcefully shut down due to licensing conflicts
Not a much better outcome
And what's stopping a bad actor from simply having their essential patches removed from the kernel?
>Sue for copyright infringement
that requires:
1) a job
2) knowing who you are, like PRECISELY who you are
3) not being like 6 countries away from you, this compounds with #2 to make it practically impossible for them to court order your ISP to dox you, except if they don't even have your IP anyway they're even further behind!
I don't think I can possibly stress just how retarded it is to rely on "haha you can't sue me!!!"
I only say this because I've known victims of the exact situation I mentioned in the past. "Haha you can't sue me" is an extremely potent defence if they don't half ass it. Best you can do is just harass whatever site its being hosted on to delete the content off it, but you won't be suing random internet people so easily, especially not ones who you can't court order the IPs off of to court order the ISPs for dox. (i.e: uses tor)
Doesn't matter, linux is already controlled by FAGMAN, the biggest users are FAGMAN. And they use linux to take away as much control from users as possible.
Once a version of FOSS software is released under a license, it is under that license forever. You can't retroactively retract a license. The most they could do is get all future versions of Linux to be under a proprietary license.
Except the GPLv2 also prohibits that.
You don't know what a license is
>Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
you should look at who linux's biggest backers are
only if it has the cuck license
There are really two questions here.
>am I allowed to use FOSS in a commercial webapp?
In many cases, yes. You obviously need to carefully review the exact licensing situation for each project you make use of.
>when the license terms DON'T allow it, can I do so anyway and get away with it?
Maybe. Depends how easy it is to prove, who owns the code, how high profile you are, whether the case is juicy enough for organisations like the EFF to be interested, and other factors.
>14 posters
>not a single solid legal advice
Lawyer here, OP don't read this thread
>No one said that it was. You're straw-manning and defending proprietary software.
You said "Because that goes directly against the point of the GPL?" implying that Google Search should be a subject to the point of GPL, but it doesn't because it's not a GPL software.
>It's very simple. If you accept that free software is good because...
Oh yeah, they are worse than free software. But my personal judgment doesn't mean they are somehow supposed to follow ideology behind some random license they don't use.
This is the very nature of freedom, even beyond software. You might grant freedoms to others because of some virtuous principles but to be free means to not have these principles forced onto you. Eg, if you fight for freedom of speech, even if it's to fight tyrannical censor-happy government, you have to accept that some people will use that freedom of speech to call you a homosexual. But that's fine, because having a choice, having freedom is always better than the opposite. That's why I support free software and I believe that anyone should be able to use both code and software for any purpose they wish, even if that purpose is not something I personally consider a good or ethical.
>The user is the person actually using the software, not the person happening to be owning/renting the computer it is ran on.
If I decided to run Windows Server on my server then it's only me who needs license for it. Not everyone who uses a service I am using on it. Your definition of the user is so weird you'd be a user of thousands of different piece of software just by making a single internet request because internet is that interconnected, it would basically be impossible to tell who uses who. Nah, I do not think it makes sense to say that if someone's connect to a http server I host on my machine then they are the users of my operating system, database and other stuff. They are the users of my http server, and I am the user of the infrastructure that I use to provide that server.
free (as in free beer) licenses can be revoked