Re: Should the ASP loophole be fixed? (Re: The Affero license)
email@example.com (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Still, I'll keep trying. "Someone who just gets a web page
> delivered is in no sense a user of the software that delivers it."
> Why is the medium of delivery of the message the key factor?
It isn't. That's precisely why ASP can be a loophole.
I've heard of a version of outlook (I don't remember what it's called)
that you can access via IE. It's designed to look and act very much
like outlook would if you had it installed on your machine, and
evidently does a very good job.
Why is the user using an MUA if it's located on the local hard drive,
but not if it's being accessed over the web with IE?
> What about Google? Am I a user of google's software? If I got the
> source, how would I be able to change it and thus improve my
> google-using experience?
Yes, you use Google. And you may be able to improve google by
submitting patches to them, but that's iffy. But there are certainly
uses to which you could put the google software, if you had the
Jeremy Hankins <firstname.lastname@example.org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03