Re: The Helixcommunity RPSL is not DFSG-free
Scripsit Mark Rafn <dagon@dagon.net>
> There are two ways this might be read. "must make modifications available
> to the upstream" is agreed as a non-starter. "must make source available
> to users in addition to distribution recipients" seems a lot more
> reasonable to me.
Actually, the language quted here did not say "make available to
users" but "make publicly available". Assuming that upstream is part
of the public, this is at least as orneous as "make available to
upstream".
Even if the clause is only triggered by providing services (which
doesen't seem to be the case; distribution of "Covered Code" is
explicitly mentioned as a form of "External Deployment" in the
definition of the latter), the requirement to distribute to the public
at large shoots the thing down.
> I find it unfortunate that a company can sell a service based on
> modified GPL code without making the source available to users of
> the service.
I find it hard to imagine a place where a line could reasonably be
drawn (such that the line was legally well-defined). Say, if I do
coding in Emacs where I have changed the indentation algorithms
slightly to fit my own perverse wishes, I would technically be
"selling a service based on modified GPL code" if I accept a freelance
coding job.
--
Henning Makholm "Y'know, I don't want to seem like one of those
hackneyed Jews that you see in heartwarming movies.
But at times like this, all I can say is 'Oy, gevalt!'"
Reply to: