Re: Should the ASP loophole be fixed? (Re: The Affero license)
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> 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.
But that's not the point. Of course I agree with *that*. The point
is that a forced publication requirement is a *RESTRICTION* not just
on "what kinds of business use the software profitably", but on the
rights of actual individuals who are now restricted in their actions.
Again: why is "send me the code" any different than "send me your IRS
return", assuming in both cases that the costs of transmission are
paid?
Reply to: