On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 06:41:40PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:27:44PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote: > > Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes: > > > Basically, as far as I can see, the dissident test is exactly equivalent > > > to saying "we don't want to close this ASP loophole thing". > > I don't think this is true, if you accept the substitution of users > > for copy holders. > Well, "dissidents" supposedly want to be able to keep their changes > private to a small group from among all the people who have any knowledge > of their software. "ASP" folks want to keep their software private to > themselves. > One possiblity would be to change the distribute-to-author requirement > to be something like "If the author is aware of your modifications, and > requests them, you are required to provide them at cost", and require the > author to somehow positively demonstrate his awareness. If you're only > using the software locally, or amongst a few friends, the author can't > demonstrate any such awareness; if you provide a subscription service > to the public, one of your subscribers can mail the author and tell him > about it though. I find this an acceptable compromise. The GPL already implements something very close to this: if you give someone a copy, they're able to pass it on to a third party who in some cases then has grounds for demanding source from the author. Extending that to letting a PCH demand access to changes if someone tells him about them doesn't seem too much of a stretch. One area of concern would be how this interacts with "NDAs" (or whatever the equivalent is in dissident undergrounds ;). There are cases today where GPL code can remain private due to the mutual interests of the parties involved. Should torturing information out of a cell member (in the extreme case) be sufficient to give the author legal standing to demand access to changes? -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgp5sHKKCWqy5.pgp
Description: PGP signature