On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 03:48:04PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 05:08:10PM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote: > > > The challenges: > > > In which cases should Joe be forced to give his program to his customer? > > IMO none of them: distributing software to customers is too significant > > a technical burden over and above presenting the output of software > > to customers. > > Distributing the source just once, to a single person or group (eg, the > > upstream author/development community, Debian, the FSF, a government > > organisation like the patent office) and giving them rights to freely > > redistribute the source effectively solves the ASP loophole too, > That's sidestepping the issue. Now: In which of Mark's cases should > Joe be forced to give his program to the upstrem author, Debian, the > FSF, or the government?
I don't see any problems with him being required to present it on request to some particular person/group in any of the cases, as long as the requests aren't unduly unreasonable. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
pgpLwS5AJPa8f.pgp
Description: PGP signature
