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

Re: Alternatives to the Affero General Public License

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 09:58:07 -0700 (PDT), "Mark Rafn" <dagon@dagon.net>
> Before going too far down this road, see
>     http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00805.html
> for some fundamental questions about where to draw the line on this 
> requirement.  Unless you're willing to say "all changes must be
> published, 
> even if never released", it's gonna be tough to find a free way to
> require 
> that any publication in the absence of distribution can be required.

Whoops, forgot to respond to that URL.

My opinion on it is that /use/ rather than /distribution/ is what should
be considered, so:
a-d should not require release of source, because Joe is the user of the
software, not the customer.

e is sort of on the line, but basically over it.  The customer is now
the user and should be allowed to get the source from Joe (on request).

f is back under the line, Joe is again the user of the software.

I'm unclear on g - if Joe starts up the program and puts in the input,
then that output is emailed automatically, Joe is still the user.  If it
actually grabs his email and such as an automated process, the customer
is now the user.

Same with f.  Does it get translated as part of the process, or does Joe
do it?

(Let me clarify my opinions on g and f.  The customer is the user
because the customer is interacting with the program - that is, the
actions of the customer are causing actions of the program.  In other
scenarios, the action of the customer does not cause action of the
program, because Joe may decide to be a jackass that day and spit in the
cusomer's face instead of running it through the program.  In those
scenarios, I would consider the customer to be a user of Joe-beta0.1.sh
rather than the typesetting software)

k and l are definitely over the line.  Now the customer is the user, and
should be able to see the code.

(All my opinions, of course).

By the way, as a response to having specific requirements for
distribution.  What if, rather than saying that the code must be
distributed via the same network medium, it said that the code must be
provided on request by any of the means allowed in the GPL (including
such strange means as snail-mail, etc).  Would that possibly push the
usability issue to the other side of the line?

 - Gregor Richards
  Gregor Richards

http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service.

Reply to: