Re: Should the ASP loophole be fixed? (Re: The Affero license)
On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 18:49, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> 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 make money by running a program with unpublished changes.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."
I wouldn't say it's distribution, but copying.
--
-Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668
"On matters of style, swim with the current, on matters
of principle, stand like a rock." -Thomas Jefferson
Reply to: