On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 02:45:15PM -0800, Terry Hancock wrote: > 1) The GPLv2 should be interpreted to treat RPC calls as creating a combined > work? > > 2) The GPLv3+ should be altered to make RPC calls create a combined work > explicitly?
I'm not sure if the "combined work" is relevant, here. It's not the combined-work concept that's being sidestepped, it's the avoiding of the source-with-distribution (by avoiding distribution entirely). So, I don't know if GPLv2 considers the RPC case a combined work--I think Thomas would say it does and I'm inclined to agree--but I don't think it matters here. > Okay, touche. But I'm *not* trying to argue against copyleft in principle. > I'm saying it isn't the only reason people share code. I know you're not trying to do that; I'm just pointing out that the argument you gave is just as easily applied to open source, and isn't specific to this problem. > And no, I'm using the GPL on my project. I *would* actually like to avoid > the case of someone developing on my codebase without releasing it. > > With the GPL, no one can release (or sell) their modifications without > releasing source. That means the only person who would make modifications > without releasing them would be someone who wants to provide the service. No one can *distribute* their modifications without releasing source. The RPC case gives a means to "release" changes without actually distributing them. I'm in full agreement that it's a difficult loophole to take advantage of, since you're in competition with the rest of the world; but then, it's equally difficult to take advantage of BSD code without releasing source, for the same reason. At the moment, though, I'm inclined to ignore this problem until there's signs that it's actually going to be abused, unless someone comes up with a solution without side-effects. -- Glenn Maynard
