On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 17:27, David Turner wrote: > On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 17:28, John Goerzen wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 04:33:12PM -0500, David Turner wrote: > > > On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 14:03, Mark Rafn wrote: > > > > I'd far rather live with the loophole and accept that some people will > > > > make money by running a program with unpublished changes. > > > > > > Of course, the issue is not money. The idea is that users of a program > > > ought to be able to get the source code for that program. Users these > > > days often use a program without ever having recieved a copy of it. > > > > People that telnetted in to central servers, I think, fell into this > > category even then. > > True, but they also typically had access to copy binaries (and > therefore, get source code). If I'm not mistaken, the "official" FSF position on this issue is that that is not distribution. From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html regarding the LPPL: "The LPPL makes the controversial claim that simply having files on a machine where a few other people could log in and access them in itself constitutes distribution. We believe courts would not uphold this claim, but it is not good for people to start making the claim." -- Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part