Re: Linux and GPLv2
Kuno Woudt <warp@frob.nl> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:00:24PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> A valid concern, arguably, even if it does hinge on certain ideas
>> about how the computing field will evolve that I doubt will turn out
>> to be accurate. But the only licenses we've seen so far that deal
>> with this problem (if it is a problem) give up too much freedom in
>> exchange. At least, IMHO.
> Can you be specific on which licenses you think attempt to deal with
> this problem? So far I only know of the Affero GPL, which I already
> mentioned elsewhere in this thread, and I am curious how other license
> authors have attempted to fix this problem.
The Affero GPL is the main one. Back when it came up on this list I
think there was some discussion about possibly clauses that might serve
the same purpose, but I don't think we came up with anything
satisfactory.
The APSL tries to do this, I think, through the use of the term
"externally deploy". I think it does a somewhat better job than the
Affero license does, but is still subject to a lot of confusion about
what sorts of things count as providing a service (which is part of the
"externally deploy" definition). It's also not clear where it gets the
legal authority to place restrictions on providing services that it
does. Possibly by claiming that it would be a "public performance".
You can see the discussion in the archives, if you're interested. It
was in August of '03 & came up again in June of '04.
--
Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Reply to: