Re: The Show So Far
Terry Hancock <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Thursday 13 March 2003 03:45 pm, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>> I don't think it's a horror story at all. Have you been paying
>> attention to my recent posts?
> Well, actually I guess I got kind of muddled. I did notice since
> then that you appeared to be arguing "my side". ;-)
Well, I'm not sure where that puts me, since I've been arguing with
him and you seem to have summarized my position quite nicely (though
I'd have no particular problem with RPC-calls being considered
analogous to linking for GPLv2 purposes). :)
Basically, I think that trying to close the ASP loophole (whether the
RPC version or the ASP version) isn't an unfree thing to do in itself,
but we haven't yet seen a way to close it that isn't in fact unfree.
The most likely approach to work, IMHO, would be to use public
performance as the stick, and then (the hard part) define clearly what
sort of performance should be considered distribution of binaries for
the purposes of the copyleft license. I don't know how to do that,
but I'm very interested in seeing suggestions folks might have.
And, as a relatively minor addendum, I don't really think it should be
the GPLv3 that should attempt this, because there isn't a clear and
present danger yet and on the other hand there are risks involved.
I'd prefer to see some less-used licenses try to close the hole, see
how they work, and perhaps after a couple of years the FSF could see
if they could incorporate them into the GPL(v4?).
Does this seem reasonable to folks?
Jeremy Hankins <email@example.com>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03