[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Should the ASP loophole be fixed? (Re: The Affero license)



On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 12:44:09PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> David Turner <novalis@novalis.org> writes:
> > > 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
> > different.
> The word "proprietary" is a red-herring.  

In the way you're going on about it, yes, it is. What David's talking
about is this: if you've got a business, whose profits are based around
a monopoly on distributing a piece of software, you can't replace your
major bits of software with GPLed software or relicense what you have
under the GPL without changing your business model.

Thus, requiring some users to change your business model is not enough
to make something non-free. Which is what "the type of business" is
all about.

There not being a business model at all might make something non-free,
although, that being a negative it would be hard to prove. There being
a _tax_ on distribution is pretty likely to make something non-free.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

  ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- 
        you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''

Attachment: pgpuZqgnk0OmC.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: