On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 02:41:49PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: > > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 10:42:34AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > > Anthony Towns <email@example.com> writes: > > > > If your program is not distributed to anyone, then the license cannot > > > > require you to distribute it to anyone (no matter how many people > > > > use it or for what purpose, etc). > > > > Which is to say that, if accepted, the Dissident test and the practical > > > > concerns we have about providing source over SMS and such, imply that > > > > no free license can ever close the ASP loophole. > > > Since there are fifteen things floating around, each of which gets > > > called "the ASP loophole", it's hard to be certain. > > Name one that it doesn't apply to? > Of the ones that I've seen, as far as I can tell, it would apply to > all the proposed methods of "closing the ASP loophole". *sigh* We're not talking about _methods_ of closing the ASP loophole, we're talking about _instances_ of the ASP loophole. Name one that isn't instantiated by someone making the program accessible to people for purposes, but not distributing it to them. Or else stop fudging around the topic. The claim is that: Dissident test + Practical objections == Can't close the ASP loophole and, furthermore that that equality goes both ways. That is that the Dissident test is just another way of saying that the only ways you're allowed to close the ASP loophole are ones which are practically unreasonable. The point of the syllogism is to make it clear that that claim isn't just an opinion, nor an exaggeration, but a reasonable and accurate restatement in all circumstances. 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