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

Re: Barriers to an ASP loophole closure



On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 05:47:21AM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> But that's exactly the error we reprimand legislators and businesses
> for: believing that a different medium requires new laws to make it
> safe.  That I receive the output of software over HTTP should change
> nothing from the cases where I received that output over a phone tree
> or on paper.

That's not really the "ASP loophole" AIUI. Think remote procedure call, not
browsing a website.

The idea is that:

	(a) gcc -o foo foo.o bar-gpl.o forms a work (foo) based on bar-gpl.o
	    and thus that people should make the full source of foo available

	(b) gcc -o foo foo.o -lbar-gpl is much the same as the above
	    gcc -o foo bar-gpl.o -lfoo is also much the same as the above

	(c) Making use of bar() from bar-gpl.so is much the same as doing
	    something like the following in foo.java:

		import java.rmi.*;
		...
		// get bar from the network
		BarInterface bar = 
			(BarInterface) Naming.lookup("//rmi.bar.com/Bar");
		bar.bar();

> That, in itself, makes a good argument for why the author should have
> no ability to place an obligation on anybody under a Free Software
> license.

Software licenses are, almost by definition, the author placing
obligations on everyone.

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: pgpHodsynzkht.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: