Re: Should the ASP loophole be fixed? (Re: The Affero license)
On Sun, 2003-03-09 at 14:49, Henning Makholm wrote:
> 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?"
That depends on the type of business, doesn't it? GPL'd software can't
be made into proprietary software, and I see this issue as little
> 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.
The question is, then, whether (2)(d) is a hoop. I think it, or some
variant of it, is such a minimal hoop that it doesn't fail DFSG 3.
-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