On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 02:45:15PM -0800, Terry Hancock wrote: > I'd also like to ask a clarification of scope question: Are we discussing > whether: > 1) The GPLv2 should be interpreted to treat RPC calls as creating a combined > work? > 2) The GPLv3+ should be altered to make RPC calls create a combined work > explicitly? It probably doesn't and it probably shouldn't, respectively. This is a matter for copyright lawyers to argue over, and seems completely unlikely. > 3) Whether a license that interprets RPC calls to require release of server > source is DFSG free? We know that requiring the release of source to all the users and to the general public is non-free because of the technical burden compliance would place on the person hosting the RPC-server. We probably can't rule out requiring you to release the source in principle, since the GPL does essentially the same thing. We can probably accept requirements to distribute back to the author on request as being free; but we'd want to discourage such clauses for similar reasons to patch clauses. I don't think anyone's come up with any other ideas that don't fairly clearly fail the DFSG. > So far, I'm just saying that I think requiring release of server if an RPC > call is made from a Free work is a "Bad Thing" on general principles. That's not possible. If I write a server, and put it up one the web, there's no law in the world that'll force me to release the source code merely because someone happens to access it with some peculiarly licensed software. We can change the circumstances though, so that either: * I modified an existing server that has the peculiar license; and am thus forced to release source somehow; or * I'm distributing copies of peculiarly licensed clients written by others, having written the server; and am thus forced to release the server's source too We can *probably* get copyright law to cover both those cases (using the exclusive rights to restrict modifications and public performance or maybe exciting new developments like UCITA or something in the first place; and regular considerations about distribution in the second place, although you might have to drop the "aggregate works" exemptions). > On Wednesday 12 March 2003 08:55 pm, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > People who develop GPL code do so with the understanding that nobody can > > take that code and make it proprietary. > Well, yes. But it does so by restricting redistribution, not use. It does so by using laws that we don't think are in our best interest for our own gain; there are other laws that aren't in our best interests that we could also potentially use for our gain... > And use > restrictions are generally viewed (and I agree) as non-free and possibly > legally-impossible anyway, as a violation of copyright fair-use principles. Distribution restrictions are generally viewed as non-free too, of course; you can't say "You're not allowed to charge more than $10 to distribute this program", or "You can't distribute this to Jews", or "You're not allowed to distribute this compressed", and so forth. The real question is what's in our best interests. Getting access to more source code is definitely in our interests. Competing against proprietary forks of our own work probably isn't. Letting ourselves try different ways of encouraging participation probably is. > Okay, touche. But I'm *not* trying to argue against copyleft in principle. > I'm saying it isn't the only reason people share code. No one's disputing that -- the BSDs are a thriving counterexample. > The tricks that people have learned to make money from open-source software > (e.g. selling services instead of software goods), it seems to me, work both > ways: when you're selling the service, the open-source approach makes more > business sense. > > I don't know, maybe that's wishful thinking, but it *seems* reasonable. Sure, that's an argument against the necessity of copyleft. IMO, copyleft is a nice trick, but is only working to correct irrationality in the market; not providing a rationale of its own. (I'm not sure that made sense) Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> <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