Re: Dissident versus ASP
firstname.lastname@example.org (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Jeremy Hankins <email@example.com> writes:
>> Folks who are providing an ASP-style service generally are going to
>> have big web servers and lots of bandwidth anyway; I'm not convinced
>> that distribution of source would be a significant burden for them.
> But the proposals for "closing the loophole" apply not only to the big
> nasty people with the wide pipes, but also to the people, who, say,
> stripped out the source-downloading feature because they are over a
> satellite link to Antartica, and the changes were published anyhow in
> the lab back in Chicago.
Yes. Which is why I didn't end my message with the bit you quoted,
and went on to talk about such folks.
And for what it's worth, I've never advocated the Affero bit (i.e.,
the quine-like functionality). I think that the only way the
requisite flexibility can be maintained would be to describe the need
(and permissible mechanisms) to provide source in the license text.
Jeremy Hankins <firstname.lastname@example.org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03