Re: Should the ASP loophole be fixed? (Re: The Affero license)
Scripsit Mark Rafn <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> 1) can software that forces a recipient to distribute it to non-recipient
> users still be considered free?
> My answers are "no" and "no".
True. Ever since I started reading debian-legal, one of the tests
applied when we consider the freedom of a license has been, "can it be
used in a business?" Like all DSFG freedoms, this actually means "can
it be used in a business without jumping through hoops?" Using
something in a business naturally means using it to produce some
product or service that customers pay for. Thus, it has always been
the intention that businesses can use DFSG-free software to produce
services sold for profit *without* jumping through hoops. Calling this
a "loophole" will not make a license that attempts to revoke or
restrict the freedom free.
Henning Makholm "`Update' isn't a bad word; in the right setting it is
useful. In the wrong setting, though, it is destructive..."