The Dissident test is equivalent to saying (or, at least, implies):
You should never be forced to give your source changes (and/or rights
to use/modify them) to anyone but the users of your program.
We've established that you can't require someone who lets other people
use a program, but who doesn't distribute copies of it normally, to
give out copies of changes made to the source to any user who asks,
too, since that'd require you to keep source available permanently and
make it accessible, or maintain an out-of-band distribution mechanism,
which are all overly impractical. Which is to say:
You should never be forced to give your source changes (and/or
rights to use/modify them) to people who merely use your program
(but don't already receive copies).
Together, those say that:
If your program is not distributed to anyone, then the license cannot
require you to distribute it to anyone (no matter how many people
use it or for what purpose, etc).
Which is to say that, if accepted, the Dissident test and the practical
concerns we have about providing source over SMS and such, imply that
no free license can ever close the ASP loophole.
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!''
pgp6q4NpIuK1W.pgp
Description: PGP signature
