Re: Barriers to an ASP loophole closure (was Re: OSD && DFSG - different purposes - constructive suggestion!)
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 14:51, Stephen Ryan wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 11:58, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I find this an acceptable compromise. The GPL already implements
> > something very close to this: if you give someone a copy, they're able
> > to pass it on to a third party who in some cases then has grounds for
> > demanding source from the author. Extending that to letting a PCH demand
> > access to changes if someone tells him about them doesn't seem too much
> > of a stretch.
> Close; the case in question for the GPL only arises in the case where
> someone actually makes a written offer valid for at least three years.
> Have you *ever* seen such an offer? I haven't.
I've seen tons of them in my work in the GPL compliance lab. Lots of
companies who make firewall appliances prefer (3)(b) compliance to
(3)(a) compliance. I will point you to an example of one which was
*not* from a compliance lab client:
The Excluded Software consists of the open source code software known as
Linux included with the Appliance. All Excluded Software is licensed
under the GNU General Public License, Version 2, June 1991, a copy of
which is included with the user documentation for the Appliance. The
license entitles You to receive a copy of the source code for Linux only
upon request at a nominal charge. If you are interested in obtaining a
copy of such source code, please contact Symantec Customer Service at
one of the above addresses for further information.
-Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668
"On matters of style, swim with the current, on matters
of principle, stand like a rock." -Thomas Jefferson