Re: defining "distribution" (Re: A few more LPPL concerns)
On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 23:10, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> > From: Jeff Licquia <licquia@debian.org>
> > Date: 21 Jul 2002 22:59:26 -0500
> >
> > It's crucial to your point, therefore, that there not be a distinction
> > between running the program from /usr/local/bin or /afs/whatever/bin. I
> > think we've shown that this isn't the case, since a sysadmin does not
> > need to give source to every person with a login on his box, but does if
> > he exports the program via AFS.
>
> Exactly. I really do not see the difference between running a program
> from /usr/local/bin or /afs/whatever/bin/. What is the difference
> between AFS and NFS besides the technical one?
There is none. In case you aren't aware, I feel NFS exporting
constitutes distribution as well.
> My /usr/local/bin can
> be NFS-exported to hundreds of computers. Even my box can have
> hundreds logins there.
Yes, but in the former case, you are distributing the program to
hundreds of computers. In the latter, hundreds of users are running the
program.
And, the GPL says:
> The act of running the Program is not restricted...
Therefore, the act of running the program from /usr/local/bin is not
restricted.
If it helps, you can think of a network mount as the act of
distribution. Or, perhaps, it would be more correct to say that the act
of editing /etc/exports or /etc/samba/smb.conf or their AFS equivalent
is the act of distribution, and the mount is the moment of receipt.
> You cannot have legal definitions depending on technical details of
> network protocols.
Why not? "Distribution of this program is only allowed over the network
protocol recognized by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) as
'HTTP 1.1'." (Non-free, of course, but there you are.)
> If something is illegal to share through AFS, it is
> still illegal to share through NFS, FTP or HTTP. Legal definitions
> *may* depend only on some high-level details of the protocols, like
> whether the protocol allows anonymous exchange etc.
Legal definitions may depend on absolutely anything the licensor decides
they may depend on, besides those conditions forbidden by law. I can,
as mentioned before, only allow distribution over HTTP, or only on
CD-ROM, or only allow it within the USA, or only after I've been paid
$99. This follows from my ability to forbid distribution entirely.
The key is that the license has to spell it out. The GPL talks about
"copying, distribution, and modification", but sees fit to not define
those terms; thus, we can accept a "common sense" definition of the
terms. The only clarification offered is the statement that "The act of
running the Program is not restricted"; this means that "copying,
distribution, and modification" is not considered to be taking place
when merely running the Program for the purposes of the license.
The LPPL, by contrast, has a different definition of "distribution":
> Note that in the above, `distribution' of a file means making the
> file available to others by any means. This includes, for instance,
> installing the file on any machine in such a way that the file is
> accessible by users other than yourself.
These two definitions are incompatible, and the GPL's is manifestly less
restrictive than the LPPL's.
> If you contend that this sharing is illegal through AFS, then you need
> to show me what features of AFS make it illegal and why they do not
> apply to NFS or simple logging to a box. Otherwise your conclusion
> will hold for these kinds of sharing too.
For NFS, I agree.
For logging on to a box, I will, again, point you to the clause in the
GPL:
> The act of running the Program is not restricted...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: