On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 03:48:04PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>
> > On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 05:08:10PM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
> > > The challenges:
> > > In which cases should Joe be forced to give his program to his customer?
> > IMO none of them: distributing software to customers is too significant
> > a technical burden over and above presenting the output of software
> > to customers.
> > Distributing the source just once, to a single person or group (eg, the
> > upstream author/development community, Debian, the FSF, a government
> > organisation like the patent office) and giving them rights to freely
> > redistribute the source effectively solves the ASP loophole too,
> That's sidestepping the issue. Now: In which of Mark's cases should
> Joe be forced to give his program to the upstrem author, Debian, the
> FSF, or the government?
I don't see any problems with him being required to present it on request
to some particular person/group in any of the cases, as long as the
requests aren't unduly unreasonable.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <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!''
Attachment:
pgpj26C8YtLkJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature