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 <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