[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Dissident versus ASP

First a general explanation of the post Henning replied to:

The bottom half of that post is an attempt to disprove by
counterexample the theory that the ASP loophole cannot be closed
without causing unbearable impracticality or failing the
dissident test.  That counterexample is an overlong, kludgey,
quickly hacked up, incomplete ASP loophole closing clause to be
read in the context of a GPL-like license.

The example is not intended to be used for real (I know at least
one fatal flaw in it).  It is simply intended to show that all
the problems mentioned so far in this discussion could be
overcome.  In the example I simply enumerate all those problems
as exceptions to the source distribution requirement or
otherwise limit the scope to avoid them.

Now back to replying to Henning's specific reply.

On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 10:12:09AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Jakob Bohm <jbj@image.dk>
> > Here is one hypothetical text (TINLA, IANAL, IANADD):
> > 
> > If you offer to one or more parties the service of running the
> > Program in exchange for a monetary fee or other significant
> > consideration, and the act of running the Program is in essence
> > the service charged for not merely a means of providing another
> > service, the parties who have actually paid for that service
> > receive the right to obtain a copy of The Program as follows.
> That's a use restriction and will never be free in my opinion.
> Use restrictions are non-free. Period.

By that definition, any form of closing the ASP loophole is a
use restriction, and this whole big discussion is pointless.

I did not include any kind of "theory of law under which this
might be enforceable" text.  But other people in this discussion
has suggested several, including "public performance".

Those who argue that the ASP loophole *should* be closed if
possible presumably make that argument on the theory that
running an ASP is a form of distribution not covered by GPLv2.

I was simply trying to define an ASP as narrowly as possible to
limit the bad effects of this hypothetical clause.

Still trying to help move this discussion forward


This message is hastily written, please ignore any unpleasant wordings,
do not consider it a binding commitment, even if its phrasing may
indicate so. Its contents may be deliberately or accidentally untrue.
Trademarks and other things belong to their owners, if any.

Reply to: