Re: The Show So Far
Steve Langasek said:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 10:55:44PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> The argument is that "//rmi.bar.com/Bar" is a GPL'd program, and this
>> java application (under whatever license; say BSD) makes use of it.
>> Now, it seems clear that this application is, in fact, linking to Bar.
>> What's not clear is distribution: it seems that Bar is never actually
>> being distributed to the user of this application. Since the binary
>> is never distributed, the GPL's source requirements never kick in.
> Yes, I think this is a pretty clear formulation of the ASP loophole in
> terms of RPC services. And for the reasons stated, I think the costs of
> closing this hole are high enough that it should NOT be closed.
I agree that the costs of closing the "ASP loophole" are too high.
> I also think that the converse situation, a GPL client using a
> GPL-incompatible RPC service, is already adequately addressed by the
> GPLv2 (though some here disagree that it is addressed).
I disagree that it is addressed. Your previous email said that the
distributor must be able to distribute source to the complete client
(including the remote "server").
If the client can work with either "//rmi.bar.com/Bar" (the proprietary
server) or with "//rmi.gnu.org/gnuBar", based on which configuration
option is chosen at runtime by the user, which server is part of the
For a specific example, consider cddb.org (aka gracenote.com now) and