On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 21:50, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:10:28PM -0500, David Turner wrote: > > Someone already answered the google question for you -- it saves you the > > 20k on a Google Search Appliance for your intranet. > > That's akin to someone releasing the source of a neat, self-contained > algorithm from an application. I can use it in my own programs, and > improve other, unrelated things with it, or learn from it, or critique > it. > > But it doesn't let me improve the application that it's from at all, > since I don't have its source. Likewise, Google releasing source > might have lots of other benefits, but it doesn't let me improve Google > in any way, and I believe those "other benefits" are peripheral.
But they're legitimate interests that users of Free Software want. I don't see why "altering the application you actually run" is the only goal that's allowed for Free Software. These aren't "side effects" -- they're primary, important goals in themselves. Indeed, giving copies to friends (another freedom of Free Software) is a primary goal. > Now, we seem to have two related but distinct cases: Google and > BarInterface. > > In the case of Google, their releasing source simply doesn't let me > improve Google--period. You could, with funding, run your own Google (with spidering and everything). You could also submit patches to the Google team. > In the case of BarInterface, it *may* be reasonable to run a separate > copy of the server on my own system, with my enhancements. This is reasonable with Google, too -- that's what the yellow box Google sells is. > I do think these two cases should be considered independently. The > "provide the source to users of a webpage" discussion revolves around > #1, which I think is distinct, and doesn't help #2 at all. In the case where #2 has this quine code, it does help. -- -Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668 "On matters of style, swim with the current, on matters of principle, stand like a rock." -Thomas Jefferson
