Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Josh Triplett <josh.trip@verizon.net> writes: >>How about something vaguely like: >> >>""" >>If you make the software or a work based on the software available for >>direct use by another party, without actually distributing the software >>to that party, you must either: >> >>a) Distribute the complete corresponding machine-readable source code >>publically under this license, or >>b) Make the source code available to that party, under the all the same >>conditions you would need to meet in GPL section 3 if you were >>distributing a binary to that party. >>""" > > So if I use software under such a license in a network switch, to whom > am I obliged to distribute source? How about a web proxy? My _intent_ with the phrase "direct use" was to avoid such issues. I'm aiming only for the case where a user directly _interacts_ with the software, so perhaps I should have said "direct interaction" instead of "direct use". Really, the main cases I'm thinking of here are: * Using the software to power a website or web service. * Using the software in a kiosk that others can directly interact with. * Allowing a user to log into your box and run the software. For example, suppose someone wanted to use GCC as a basis for the compiler for a new language, but they didn't want to release the source for it. All they would need to do is make the changes, put them behind a web-accessible SOAP API, and tell people to use that for compilation (and perhaps distribute a small client for that service to install as /usr/bin/secretarch-gcc). This would sidestep the GPL, since the code is not being distributed to those users; nevertheless, the users of such a service certainly deserve the code behind it, under a Free license. The license I suggested is an attempt to avoid that. > I do wonder what "publically" means. If I'm offering to hand a CD to > anyone who asks me for one in person, is that public enough? Or must > I run a web server to distribute it, and thus (assuming this license > is broadly used) have to distribute a web server too? "Publically" meaning that rather than making special arrangements with any particular party, it would be acceptable to tell users of your service that the source is already available from such-and-such location. It's possible that this should be clarified, but I believe that "publically available" has a legal meaning. That clause was mostly included for convenience, so that you were not required to make arrangements with each individual user who wanted source, and could just provide a notice saying "source available here". > Does the Department of Transportation need to make stoplight software > generally available? While I do think government software should always be Free Software and distributed to the public, I would not really classify that case as "direct interaction", or really "interaction" at all. > Does google have to make its source code available? If that code is a derivative of code under such a license, then yes. > If so, why? It's > not going to do anybody else any *good*, since we don't have > 100 kilomachine clusters sitting around idle to use. So this doesn't > get us Freedom; we can't change the google interface we use in > practice. And getting a copy of Apache doesn't entitle you to hardware equivalent to that which powers apache.org, and getting a copy of Neverball or BZFlag doesn't entitle you to 3D hardware, and getting a copy of CERNlib doesn't entitle you to a particle accelerator. You would have no rights to change the version of the software Google runs on its own servers. You _could_ deploy the software on your own systems however you pleased. That is certainly Freedom. > Slashdot *does* publish its code, but this doesn't give me freedom > with respect to Slashdot. Of couse not; you shouldn't be able to control the actual installation of the software on slashdot.org. You can, however, create your own installation, and many people have. > I just don't see how compelling source > distribution from a networked provider actually increases freedom -- > since I don't care about changing the code I have, I care about > changing the code *they* have. And similarly, just because Mozilla is Free Software doesn't mean you can directly change the software as distributed from mozilla.org. It only means you can change your copy of Mozilla, and distribute the results to anyone who is interested. > I think it's great that some sites publish their code. But I don't > see any benefit to freedom from compelling them to do so. On the > other hand, a compulsive *open interface* would be a useful thing. > Say, if Google were using a weirdly licensed web server which > compelled them to provide an RPC function allowing arbitrary queries, > so that others could access their data in surprising new ways. This, on the other hand, seems like a ridiculous restriction. No server should mandate what services you must provide using that server. - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature