Michael Poole wrote:
> Josh Triplett writes:
>>Michael Poole wrote:
>>
>>>For the purposes of making it a purely copyright based license, it is
>>>probably desirable to only have such a clause kick in for works based
>>>on the software. Use (whether by the recipient or by third parties)
>>>of software is not, as far as I know, a right reserved under copyright
>>>law -- but preparing a derived work is.
>>
>>Agreed, especially considering that if the work was completely
>>unmodified and separate, then you could just as easily obtain the source
>>of the original Free Software program (assuming it is generally
>>available, which will cover the vast majority of cases).
>>
>>So other than that, you would consider this clause Free?
>
> I would, but as I said before, I have an agenda with respect to remote
> application licenses. I can see arguments against it based on DFSG#6
> (discrimination against the field of remotely offering modified
> versions of the software -- silly, I know) and the Chinese Dissident
> test ("Any requirement for sending source modifications to anyone
> other than the recipient of the modified binary" -- although I think
> the spirit of the test would accept the clause).
As is often mentioned, if you take DFSG6 that far, you could use it to
argue that the GPL discriminates against the field of offering
proprietary modified versions of the software. I don't think DFSG6 can
sanely be taken that far, and I think it can only really be applied to
"non-commercial use", "not for use in weapons research or development",
and similar clauses.
> I think the DFSG#6 argument applies more clearly to the original
> version you proposed, where anyone running the software in a kiosk
> might have to make source code available to users who walk up and do
> even a trivial amount of interaction.
That would still apply here, if they modified the software; the amount
of interaction is not relevant. I don't think DFSG6 is applicable to
either situation; if it was, I think it would be applicable to both.
> 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.
>>>At least one previous discussion has mentioned "public performance" of
>>>a work being controlled by copyright, and using this as a lever to
>>>achieve the above. My reading of 17 USC 106(4) suggests that this is
>>>not applicable to software.
>>>(See http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/106.html)
>>
>>Based on that, it indeed does not seem to apply, assuming that the
>>software cannot be construed as an "audiovisual work" (which would
>>depend on the software).
>
> As Andrew Suffield wrote, software is classified as a literary work in
> the USA (some software is also an audiovisual work). Bitlaw
> remarks[1] that there is no clear interpretation of the public
> performance or display rights for software, though; some lawyer will
> probably make a career (or at least a small fortune) off that point in
> the next decade.
>
> [1]- http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/scope.html
Good to know. It does seem like if the public performance right covers
making a video game available for public use (which probably came up in
a case against an arcade), it should also apply for making a web
application available for public use.
- Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature