Re: Dissident versus ASP
Henning Makholm <email@example.com> writes:
> Scripsit Jeremy Hankins <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> I'm saying that in the most typical case, these folks will have big
>> servers & big pipes. I'm certainly not saying that it's ideal that
>> only folks with big servers and big pipes be able to provide ASP
> What you seem to be saying is that you consider it OK if a
> (purportedly free) license effectively prevents people *without*
> big servers and big pipes from using/modifying the software.
> Well, that's probably not what you mean, but it's the consequence of
> the "this is free enough, because it will not be hard to satisfy for
> people who do have sexy hardware" line of reasoning.
You may want to go back and reread the message in question, I have a
feeling you saw the bit about folks with big pipes and didn't read on
about folks with smaller pipes.
I gave suggested several ways in which things could be made easier:
* If no changes have been made to the source, a URL to upstream may be
* If changes have been made and upstream incorporates them, a URL may
still be sufficient.
* If upstream doesn't incorporate the patches, distribution of patches
along with the URL of upstream may be enough.
* If even distribution of patches is onerous, include a written offer
option, ala the GPL.
* Going yet farther, a license may include a time delay (of one month,
for example) before source distribution is required.
I don't see that combination of options an onerous, even for folks
with small pipes. Do you? If you think so, tell me who's going to
have trouble meeting *any* of these requirements.
Jeremy Hankins <email@example.com>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03