Re: OSD && DFSG - different purposes - constructive suggestion!
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 06:44, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * David Turner <email@example.com> [030311 00:46]:
> > Because the four freedoms do talk about freedom to use the software, but
> > don't say anthing about the freedom to *not* disclose source code under
> > certain conditions.
> I may not talk about freedom, but it talks about:
> * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs.
> Having to distribute one's modifications heavily limits this freedom.
I see a problem with having to distribute modifications in the general
case, but not in the only-to-users case.
> Having to distribute (or offer) the source code together with the
> binaries one distributes is not only a much more minor requirement
> (as it just increases the things to distribute, not forces an act of
> its own), but also aims to keeping the freedom of the receivers of
> the binary.
Actually, the intent of AGPL's (2)(d) (if not its actual implementation,
which is a minor point) is that people running the program in an
ordinary fashion don't need to do anything -- they're already providing
some software which uses a browser as its interface, and now the
software happens to provide source code.
> Even http://www.fsf.org/philosophiy/free-sw.html, where the four
> freedoms are written, talks about:
> #You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them
> #privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they
> #exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to
> #notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.
> #The freedom to use a program means the freedom for any kind
> #of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer
> #system, for any kind of overall job, and without being required to
> #communicate subsequently with the developer or any other specific entity.
> The current discussion tends a bit to much to discuss, if a clause
> forcing the users of the program to give the people interacting with
> its output access to it, can be beneficial to free software in general.
> Even if such a clause would be benefical (though I really doubt it,
> as it has huge practical impacts, as many on this list noted),
> this would still be no justification to remove such elementary freedom.
I think the above can and should be read to allow the AGPL. Providing a
web service to the public goes beyond using modifications "privately."
-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