On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 01:00:29PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote: > Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > Arguments about practicality, that this makes doing legitimate things harder > > or impossible in some situations for purely technical reasons (the stranded > > on an island test does this), are valid, but I haven't really seen any. I'm talking about the example of "If you produce HTML, include a copyright note in the HTML comments; If the author asks for a copy of your modifications, and covers your costs in providing them, you have to present them" here. This isn't the proposed RPSL or the AGPL. > What about an ATM machine? First, it's not producing HTML, so you don't have to include the copyright note. So you don't have to worry about that at all. And if the author asks for your sources, he has to cover costs of someone putting together the sources and sending them to him. > If the ATM machine communicated with the > central database using code with this enforced distribution clause, > then you have to distribute to the users of the ATM. Modifying an ATM > to distribute code in addition to cash seems rather onerous. Yes, certainly. I don't think either the RPSL or the AGPL are reasonable. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <email@example.com> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
Description: PGP signature