Re: The Helixcommunity RPSL is not DFSG-free
Andrea Glorioso <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> >>>>> "tb" == Thomas Bushnell <email@example.com> writes:
> tb> No, it wouldn't, because Chinese dissidents want to share the
> tb> software with each other. That's distribution. But they
> tb> don't want to have to advertise their activities to the
> tb> Chinese government.
> a. iff you modify RPSL code AND you don't distribute it, you don't have
> to distribute your modification;
> b. iff you modify RPSL code AND you distribute it to a set X of
> recipients, you have to distribute your modifications to the very
> same set X of recipients, and to no-one else;
Number (b) is not what the RPSL says, however. What it says is that
you have to make it publicly available. Number (b), as you rightly
point out, is the GPL condition.
> I have still some doubts about the case where you use a modified
> version of RPSL code to distribute "content", in which case it seems
> to me that the RPSL obliges you to redistribute the modified source to
> every recipient of the content. I suppose it doesn't buy much for
> what Real is trying to achieve (from from I can gather, but of course
> Rob's words on this issue are helpful) and is going to be incompatible
> with case (b).
Yes, this also is a problem, but a separate one.