Re: Affero General Public License
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 09:06:39AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> The only possibility that I can think of is to use an idea like "public
> performance". I.e., if the work is "publicly performed", source
> distribution requirements would apply. Public performance would
> probably have to be defined in a way that takes into account the purpose
> for which people are using the software (i.e., their primary purpose is
> to use the software, as opposed to using the software only to facilitate
> access to something else).
A real example (from my own field) where this would cause serious practical
problems is arcade machines. It's clearly "public performance", and players
in arcades really are using (and interacting with) the software directly.
We include sources to GPL stuff on the machine's drive itself (though
nobody cares, since none of it is modified except for the kernel, and that
particular code is available on our webpage too). That's for the arcade
operator (the owner of the machine). I have no idea how one might satisfy
a requirement that the *users* be given GPL-like access to the source.