Re: Should the ASP loophole be fixed? (Re: The Affero license)
Scripsit David Turner <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> On Sun, 2003-03-09 at 14:49, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > 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?
No, it doesn't. We require of free software that a business must be
allowed to modify and run it on their own hardware for whatever
purpose they think make business sense, *including* providing a
service to their customers for profit, and *without* jumping through
> GPL'd software can't be made into proprietary software,
That's not a form of being used. That's a form of being incorporated
into a proprietary product.
If you think my wording is ambiguous, feel free to replace "used" with
> The question is, then, whether (2)(d) is a hoop.
It clearly is. We have ample precedent on d-l that even things like
"make a good-faith attempt to send an email to the upstream author"
constitutes a hoop and will make a license nonfree if it's stated as a
condition for distributing modified copies. And that's a lot less
onerous than forced distribution of the modified code itself - it is
only real trouble in extreme situations like the desert island
scenario, but would be non-free even if it tried really hard to
exclude inhabitants of desert islands from the requirement, simply
because it is a hoop.
Henning Makholm "Larry wants to replicate all the time ... ah, no,
all I meant was that he likes to have a bang everywhere."