Re: Web application licenses

[Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>]

Josh Triplett writes:

> Michael Poole wrote:
>> The version I suggested might be easily violated by proxy, though.
>> Suppose Joe and Jane are in cahoots.  Jane modifies an application
>> under the license and gives the source to Joe.  Joe offers the
>> modified application, but not the source, to the public.  Each have
>> done what the license literally requires of them, but not what was
>> intended.
>
> Good point.  Any ideas on how to fix that?
>
> Of course, if the information below is accurate, then placing
> requirements on users of unmodified versions is possible, which would
> make it possible to solve this problem.

The RPSL license (see my post on that thread) has an interesting
balance.  It puts the burden of publication on the person who
Externally Deploys Modifications to the Covered Code (using the terms
from the RPSL).  If the Covered Code were available from some other
third party, the External Deployer may not need to offer it also.  I
can see arguments either way.

Restricting users of unmodified versions has run into problems; for
example, the Open Software License 2.0 (and 2.1) says that External
Deployment of a Derivative Work is considered distribution of the
whole work.  The debian-legal consensus for that was that it is a
non-free use restriction.  I am a little confused on that point, since
the OSL 2.x restriction on External Deployment only applies to
Derivative Works, not the Original.

Michael Poole