Re: Open Software License
> >
> > Whee! I haven't changed my mind since the Affero discussion. I
> > personally think it's a non-free use restriction to declare that "deliver
> > content to anyone other than You" is equivalent to distribution of the
> > software.
>
> I agree strongly; in a networked world all software potentially falls
> under such clauses, and then, the only persons able to use software
> under such licenses are those who are willing to undertake the
> obligations of publication. Forced publication requirements have always
> been a problem before, when they applied to a far smaller set of people,
> and I don't see why it should be any better that every user is forced to
> publish the software. In theory, it's a great way to increase the
> availability of the software, but in practice, it limits the usage to
> those with the resources and the ability to publish it. If I run such
> software on a network-accessible port over a dial-up connection, am I in
> violation of the license for disconnecting when *I'm* done, as opposed
> to when whoever's downloading the source code off my is done? If I run
> the software on a network-connected cellphone or PDA where I pay per
> byte, do I have to offer the source for download through the
> phone/PDA? If I run an email auto-responder service from behind a NAT
> firewall, do I have to email the sources, too?
>
I believe a simple "this service provided by FooWare, get it from
http://www.fooware.com"; will suffice. The language explicitly says the work
can be provided in a means convenient and inexpensive to you.
But does the license really say you, as the service provider, have the
responsibility to give the source to your users? From my reading it is
always the licensor who has that onus. By distributing do you become a
licensor as defined in this document?
I presume this document has been discussed elsewhere, has Mr. Rosen spoken on
these matters? From what I have seen of him on the Net, he seems willing to
discuss such matters.
Reply to: