On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:27:44PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote: > Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: > > Basically, as far as I can see, the dissident test is exactly equivalent > > to saying "we don't want to close this ASP loophole thing". > I don't think this is true, if you accept the substitution of users > for copy holders. Well, "dissidents" supposedly want to be able to keep their changes private to a small group from among all the people who have any knowledge of their software. "ASP" folks want to keep their software private to themselves. One possiblity would be to change the distribute-to-author requirement to be something like "If the author is aware of your modifications, and requests them, you are required to provide them at cost", and require the author to somehow positively demonstrate his awareness. If you're only using the software locally, or amongst a few friends, the author can't demonstrate any such awareness; if you provide a subscription service to the public, one of your subscribers can mail the author and tell him about it though. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <email@example.com> <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!''
Description: PGP signature