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

Re: Is OSL 2.0 compliant with DFSG?



On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 11:19:11 +0200 Anders Torger wrote:

> > #5 places a distribution-like burden on certain types of use (e.g.,
> > use as part of a web server and you must distribute source).
> 
> I thought this was no different than from the GPL, it is just more 
> clearly stated here in the OSL. But perhaps I am wrong?
> 
> The idea is that you can modify source code and make derivative works,
> 
> and you do not need to release the source code as long as you do not 
> deploy the software externally. That is, you can use OSL software with
> 
> proprietary modifications internally in your company without releasing
> 
> the source to the public, as long as the software is not made
> available to the public. Releasing binaries to the public, or making
> the user interface to the software available through a public web
> server is two ways of making the software public, and then the source
> must indeed be made available.
> 
> If I remember correctly, this is also FSF's view of the GPL. It's a
> gray area of GPL, which has been made clearer in OSL.

Running a server program on a publicly accessible machine is not
the same as (re)distributing that program.

Anyway the FSF states that, in such particular situation, "it would be
legitimate to require release of the source code" (if the program is
GPL'd, of course). See

http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnreleasedMods

But, AFAICR, the GPLv2 text doesn't say that such case would be
equivalent to (re)distribution.

> > #9 (the clickwrap bit) requires you to get agreement to the
> > #clickwrap
> > in order to distribute.  E.g., no ftp distribution.
[...]
> As I see it, this #9 is a sort of belt-and-braces clause which is more
> 
> or less redundant. The traditional way of distributing GPL software, 
> that is with a simple license file in the .tar.gz is not enough for 
> "forcing" the user to accept the license agreement before using the 
> software. That is, you as the licensor cannot say that a user of the 
> software has accepted the license agreement.

Quoting from the very text of the GNU GPL
(http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.txt, section 0.)

: Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
: covered by this License; they are outside its scope.  The act of
: running the Program is not restricted

That means you don't have to accept the GNU GPL in order to /use/ a
GPL'd program.

Correct me if I'm wrong.


-- 
             |  GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 | You're compiling a program
  Francesco  |        Key fingerprint = | and, all of a sudden, boom!
     Poli    | C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 |         -- from APT HOWTO,
             | 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 |             version 1.8.0

Attachment: pgp8BlbYKUpVO.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: