Glenn Maynard wrote: > Here's a case that I'd remembered vaguely but havn't been able to find again > until now: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00369.html > > In this case, the only realistic way to fulfill this type of "source to > network users" requirement is by some other channel than the actual network. > Costs aside, spamming the source at the SMS receiver is useless; it needs > to be sent to a computer. Agreed. > This isn't a matter of resources; the very medium itself is not designed > for the transmission of source code, and a "make the source available on > the same medium" could make use in this context not onerous, but impossible, > and I think that's a clear non-free boundary. I don't think that's a non-free boundary at all. The GPL has the same "make available on the same medium" clause, so the only reason you are suggesting it shouldn't apply here is because you are providing a service rather than distributing a GPLed work. See below for a case where providing source for a distributed work could be just as onerous. Consider what would happen if you started a service to provide GPLed Wikipedia-like content via SMS. (Ignore the fact that Wikipedia itself is GFDLed; consider a hypothetical GPLed version.) In this case, you would have the same requirement to provide source to the recipients. Providing the full source to this Wikipedia-like encyclopedia via SMS would be nearly impossible and prohibitively expensive, and as you said above, quite useless to the recipient. (And I don't think providing only the source for each page would be acceptable, nor would it really be feasible or useful either.) You would again need to provide the source via a separate medium. Also, consider the more modern version of SMS, called MMS. It can be used to transmit large quantities of data to a phone, including pictures, video, *applets*, etc. This is clearly distribution. Suppose an applet were GPLed. It still would be difficult to transmit the source to people's phones (or perhaps impossible, if the complete source were too large). Yet we do not say the GPL is non-free because of these cases, nor should we. Just because a requirement to provide source code might be inconvenient or even impossible in a particular case does not mean the license is non-free. > I don't think an alternative, "make it available by some medium"--for > example, setting up a webserver and pointing to it--is reasonable, since > it boils down to "if you run an SMS server, you must also run a webserver". > That becomes an unrecoupable expense if nobody actually downloads it. If > I'm not already running a webserver, merely setting one up will cost me > monthly. That is one of many alternatives; others include mail-order CDs (if you think you won't get many requests), "email me for the source", etc. > (I'm hoping that we agree that "you must run a file distribution > server if you use this software" is non-free, at least.) Of course, because it dictates the use of a particular technology. That's the same reason I think the Affero GPL is non-free: it specifies HTTP as a medium, which makes it impossible to make derivative works that are servers but not HTTP servers. > As for "make an offer": just as I don't consider the GPL's "3-year offer" > requirement free on its own[1], I wouldn't consider the same requirement > free in this context: every time I modify the software and install it on > my server, I'd have to archive the source, just in case somebody requests > that revision. And consider again the case of distributing Wikipedia-like content via SMS, where this content changes regularly: you would again need to archive every version (since as stated above, you can't accompany each transmitted version with its source under GPL 3a). > As a side argument, even making such an offer is costly in this context. > I don't think I'd buy the argument that "but we allow that with the GPL" > (that is, we allow it to require the copyright/output blurb, which is > comparable to requiring an output of an offer of source), because I don't > think many people have seriously considered the GPL's output blurbs in this > context. That sounds a lot like "I think this argument might work against the GPL in this case too, so let's not go there.". :) A copyright notice is only a handful of bytes, and other than a medium like SMS, there are few cases where it would be difficult to include. It might also be possible to only provide it once per user; I don't know if that would be legal, but it certainly seems reasonable. As for possibility of a large mandatory output blurb, I tend to agree with those who say that GPL 2c is extremely close to the line (if not over it), and that in any other license it would be considered non-free. Furthermore, in the cases given above for distributing a GPLed work via SMS, you would have the same problem. I think distribution via SMS is a pathological case, and you can probably find many ways in which existing licenses would cause large inconveniences or impracticalities in such a case. > [1] refresher: as we've discussed elsewhere, requiring that I archive the > source for every binary I distribute for several years is unreasonable; > fortunately, GPL#3a makes this irrelevant And as shown above, there are cases where distribution of source under GPL#3a could be completely infeasible as well. > On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 10:34:27PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: >>What if you are distributing a book, or a handout, or a flyer, or a >>reference card, and you suddenly have to either include a CD of source >>with every copy, or include an offer to provide source? That could >>certainly be considered onerous, and yet it is considered to be Free. > > I personally don't tend to think that requiring that I include a CD along > with a handout is reasonable; it's just a battle that I've never had the > inclination to fight. That's a big statement; are you suggesting that recipients of such distributed versions of a GPLed work do not deserve Freedom over that work? >>Personally, I don't think this is a use restriction, because I think >>using software to provide services to others goes beyond your own use, >>since it involves others; those others deserve freedom as well. > > The purpose of the restriction isn't what makes it a use restriction or > not. If it restricts use, it's a use restriction. This says "if you > use this program to generate stuff for others, do this and that"; that's > a use restriction by my understanding, just as is "you may not use this > software to spam". What I am suggesting is that it is going beyond "if *you* use the program to generate stuff for others", into "if you allow *others* to make use of the program". I think that is a meaningful distinction. - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature