Re: Alternatives to the Affero General Public License
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 23:57:39 -0700, "Gregor Richards"
<grichards@ml1.net> said:
> Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
>
> >O Martes, 21 de Xuño de 2005 ás 20:07:36 -0700, Gregor Richards escribía:
> >
> >>In response section 6:
> >>(So that I can reference, the full section:)
> >>6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
> >>Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
> >>original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
> >>these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions
> >>on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not
> >>responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
> >> It seems to me that the license from the original licensor would
> >> include this new term/condition, as that is how (s)he licensed it.
> >
> >
> > If you look closely, it says "subject to these terms and conditions" and
> >"the rights granted herein", not "subject to the same terms and conditions
> >under which you received the Program" nor "the rights granted to you".
> >
> >> I of course can't make an entirely new license based on the GNU GPL
> >> without FSF's permission, so is there any way that a term could be added
> >> at all?
> >
> >
> > You can, if you remove the preamble.
> >
> > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL
> >
> >>In response to the dissident problem:
> >>I don't see how this hinders said dissident at all. If said dissident
> >>has to send the entire source, (s)he as already made it available
> >>through some computer network.
> >
> >
> > Made *what* available? An interface to the program, not the program itself,
> >like in the GPL.
> >
> >> If said dissident made it available on a public computer network, they
> >>have already incriminated themselves
> >
> >
> > Not necessarily. For example, in a CMS for dissidents, the source code
> >might include "workflow" code that reflects the structure of the dissident
> >organization (for example, the text is written then sent for approval to the
> >local coordinator, then to the regional coordinator, then it is published
> >and a copy is sent to the pamphlet printers). The source code now contains
> >information which is not present in the user interface but is incriminating.
> >
> In response to "You can, if you remove the preamble"
> Yes, I realized that just a bit too late, but have now made a hybrid
> license. The FAQ doesn't make it clear whether you should maintain the
> FSF Copyright ... on the one hand, the FAQ seems pretty insistant that
> you remove all reference to GNU or FSF, but on the other hand, it's
> certainly still copyrighted by the FSF. :(
>
> In response to "An interface to the program, not the program itself"
> Am I the only person who fails to see this as a significant difference?
> I don't think the freedoms of Free Software should be limited to people
> who actually have copies of the software, but to all users of the
> software.
>
> In response to the dissident problem:
> I see putting it on a public network as equivilant to uploading a binary
> of a GPL'd program to www.illegal-dissident-files.com . If they do that
> as a handy means of distribution, they have to provide the sources. So
> what do they do? They don't put it on a public server. This is not
> discrimination against these dissidents, because they are not required
> to put it on a public server. Well, my proposed modified license also
> does not require that they put it on a public server. Even if they do
> put it on a public server, they can put it behind a .htpasswd file.
> Users who are blocked by the .htpasswd file never interact with the
> program, and hence the code does not need to be sent.
> Realistically, to most users, and even to most programmers most of the
> time, a binary is just a black hole that produces output. Source is
> what makes it less than just a black hole. I don't see why the right to
> read the code behind this black hole of functionality should be limited
> only to binaries physically on a system, and not to programs running
> over a network.
> And I think there's too much weight being placed on the distinction
> between having a binary on one's system and running it through other
> means.
> Just my opinion though *shrugs*
>
> - Gregor Richards
> --
> Gregor Richards
> grichards@ml1.net
>
> --
> http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service.
>
Err, sorry, let me briefly correct myself here...
> I see putting it on a public network as equivilant to uploading a binary
> of a GPL'd program to www.illegal-dissident-files.com . If they do that
> as a handy means of distribution, they have to provide the sources.
They have to provide the sources ... or a written offer for them, to
anyone who actually downloads the binary, etc, etc. But the basic point
is still valid.
--
Gregor Richards
grichards@ml1.net
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service.
Reply to: