Re: APSL 2.0

["Bernhard R. Link" <blink@informatik.uni-freiburg.de>]

* MJ Ray <markj@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> [030807 12:51]:
> It is expected that GPL-3 will contain something similar to the Affero GPL
> requirement for remote services to offer users the code.  

Hopefully not. (When I remember the "PHPNuke licese"-thread there
was some word that it will not.)

> Do you object to that?  If so, why?  

At least I do, because I as user (in the only undoubtly sense of 
user as those who owns the copy and runs it) am loosing elementary 
rights. (For example I might no longer be able to run it at all,
as I cannot fullfill the requirements).

It's the idea of copyleft to give the (in some opinion unnaturaly
restricted by law) right to make copies and distribute them in
exchange for the limitations to give source together with binaries.

While I can live with this restriction as I can respect the
(in some eyes stupid) limitation on make copies of other people's
work, putting restrictions on the usage of a legal copy is simply
immoral. (And while the lawyers seem currently struggling here in
Germany if usage of a program is copying to RAM and thus limited
by copyright law or not, I just handle immoral things as void).

> If you are offering interaction with the code
> via some sort of remote procedure call, you are not using it privately
> for your own ends and some of the users may want to adapt the software,
> which is a freedom normally offered by free software.

It is only offered for those having copies. And I'd be sadly supprised
if for example giving students accounts in a computer lab would
count as distribution. (And remembering what I saw in some /bin/clear
scripts I doubt any jurisdiction will).


Hochachtungsvoll,
  Bernhard R. Link

-- 
Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing
an editor and a MTA.