Re: Web application licenses
Josh Triplett <josh.trip@verizon.net> writes:
> As you said, that's not a criteria Debian can use; you need to quantify
> exactly what fails your "I'd cease using and/or modifying a work"
> critera. If anything that requires you to provide source for the server
> software you use to those who interact with that server would fail it,
> then no license that attempted to cover providing source to users of a
> service would ever fulfill your criteria. I personally think that
> requirement is reasonable.
Just as Glenn's personal preferences are too fuzzy to work for Debian,
so is your definition of "users of a service." You need to
specify very clearly what you mean to include and what you don't. I
don't think any definition can incorporate a reasonable number of
users without being non-free, but I am interested to see the attempt.
> However, you didn't respond to the fact that you are allowed to
> recoup your costs; does that affect your argument that a requirement to
> distribute source is excessively burdensome?
Individual cost isn't enough; the cost of providing source to a
billion people is much higher than a billion times the cost of
providing source to one person.
> What if you are distributing a book, or a handout, or a flyer, or a
> reference card, and you suddenly have to either include a CD of source
> with every copy, or include an offer to provide source? That could
> certainly be considered onerous, and yet it is considered to be Free.
That's the only way to get the recipient freedom. Giving source to a
user doesn't even guarantee him freedom.
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: