[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

GPLv3 2(d) (was Re: PHPNuke license)

David Turner <novalis@novalis.org> writes:

> * d) If the Program as you received it is intended to interact with
> users through a computer network and if, in the version you
> received, any user interacting with the Program was given the
> opportunity to request transmission to that user of the Program's
> complete source code, you must not remove that facility from your
> modified version of the Program or work based on the Program, and
> must offer an equivalent opportunity for all users interacting with
> your Program through a computer network to request immediate
> transmission by HTTP of the complete source code of your modified
> version or other derivative work.

It definitely does seem to me that if this can be done via a public
performance restriction that would be much better.

You may want to narrow the scope of public performance a bit (should
apache or an ftpd be included?) -- define a term to cover the sort of
public performances you're interested in.  Then say that this sort of
performance triggers the redistribution bit (written offer for source
or distributed on the web, etc.).  Possibly throw in the quine-like
functionality as an optional way of satisfying that requirement.

If the term used ("public use", say) is defined a smidge too broadly
that shouldn't be too terribly much of a problem.  I may not like
having to provide a link to the apache source when I put up a web
page, but especially if I can satisfy that by pointing to the original
location if I haven't changed it, I don't think it's a terrible
burden.  Nonetheless, defining this term is probably the hard part.
I'm guessing that that's at least in part what you're trying to avoid
by leaving it up to the original author to include the quine-like

This scheme has the (profound, imho) advantage that it does not
restrict the functionality (or text/source) of the derivative work.
Otherwise you get into the game of trying to predict and account for
later development and technology.  If there's one thing that's obvious
looking at the history of good intentions expressed in licenses, it's
that predicting the future is a losing game no matter how you play it.

IANAL, so I'm happy to be educated if this isn't workable for some

Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333  9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03

Reply to: