On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 07:30:44PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > 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 >
I certainly aggree with the first test (even though RMS does not). Not because people should be allowed to take free software proprietary, but because there are many reasons why the contents, existence or whereabouts of a "regionally" modified program is likely to imply some information which can be considered reasonably private for other reasons. The dissident test expresses one situation where all 3 are very private. I do not aggree with the second test in general. A big service provider, whose primary service is to let people run a copy of a piece of free software can be reasonably required to provide the patches / sources to *that* program in a way similar to the current GPLv2 ways (immidiate access from a designated place, proactive provisioning to users, reference to public source if not modified or an implied offer to provide current version at distribution cost). For instance someone providing a $1 SMS service with no web server at all could send it out on CD-Rs at cost *if and when requested*. They could even offer to send it out on SMS charging $1 per 140 chars, but that would be stretching it. Someone running their company out of Antarctica could charge the transmission cost for the source download if someone insists on getting it. But the time-sharing company requirement must be written so it does not extend beyond that scenario at all. Someone running a small-time server should not be required to reveal source (but see DFSG 6). Someone who provides a different service altogether but happens to use a piece of free software to do so should not be required to reveal source. Someone who provides a time-sharing service and uses a piece of free software which is not the service should not be required to reveal that source. Example: A company whose service is to calculate paychecks and initiate the resulting money transfers and accounting transactions would be using many crucial pieces of software: The program that figures out all the strange laws and published aggreements regarding paycheck calculations could be subject to a GPLv3 publishing requirement if it was under the GPLv3. This would be a real pain, but also a real freedom (such companies often bark at implementing new payment schemes). If the company wants this to be kept proprietary they must keep that piece of code free of GPLv3 code. If they share they must share alike. The program or data which knows the secrets of some peoples private job and salary situations should remain private even if indirectly under GPLv3 (so there must be a personal information exception allowing those details to be weeded from the released patch). However it could be force requested by the individual receiving or paying that particular paycheck. The program which talks to the money transfer interfaces of various banking systems would (at most) be GPLv3 obliged with those banks as users. The program used to validate incoming requests as reasonable is not the primary service and should be exempt. There might also be a general exception for code implementing provider specific security checks, similar to the personal information exception. The kernel, compiler, shell, backup software, console I/O etc. of the computers running the system are definitely not the primary service and should be exempt. The system used to compute and track the charges incured by users of the service is not the primary service and should be exempt. The cgi script providing a web interface to the service is a borderline case (assuming the script contains GPL cgi code and also assuming that there are other ways to talk to the service (paper mail etc.)). The web server hosting that cgi code should not be covered by forced distribution, because it is incidental, not primary. I have not thought all of these cases through and may change my mind about some of them later. Here is one hypothetical text (TINLA, IANAL, IANADD): If you offer to one or more parties the service of running the Program in exchange for a monetary fee or other significant consideration, and the act of running the Program is in essence the service charged for not merely a means of providing another service, the parties who have actually paid for that service receive the right to obtain a copy of The Program as follows. a) The copy of The Program must be provided in source form as defined above and must be provided under this license. It must be provided on a media or form which is customarily used for interchange of program source code, and which is not restricted by technical or other means from being used, modified, copied, distributed etc. in all the ways permitted by this license. b) You are not exempt from obeying the rest of this licence when providing a copy of The Program to comply with this clause. It is your responsibility to ensure your ability to legally and practically do so before accepting payment. c) The source provided must at your choice correspond to either The Program as actually ran by the requesting paying user prior to the request, or to The Program as offered to similarly paying users at the time the request was received by You. d) You may omit from the source the details of personal information and data of persons other than the requesting paying user. In particular, You may omit personal information and data of yourself. Typical examples of personal information include but is not limited to names, e-mail addresses, passwords, social security numbers, financial details, health information, political and religious sympaties etc. You may interpret information as personal if it can be reasonably considered as such even if that information does not fall under a strict definition of "personal information" used in laws about privacy or data protection. e) You may omit from the source the details of security and business rules specific to You and not a primary part of the service offering. f) The copy of The Program must be provided no later than one month after You receive the request. You may at your option provide the copy prior to receiving the request. g) You may charge for the act of providing the copy of The Program, but no more than twice your actual cost of physically providing the copy. This includes labour in preparing the copy for distribution but not any cost in creating the copy as used to provide Your service offering. h) You may provide the requested copy by either: h1) Providing it on a medium customarily used for software interchange or h2) Providing access to retrieve it from a designated place accessible to the requesting paying user at no surcharge above g) or h3) refering the paying user to another party actualy providing h1) or h2) and satisfying a) - g) as measured relative to your service offering. -- This message is hastily written, please ignore any unpleasant wordings, do not consider it a binding commitment, even if its phrasing may indicate so. Its contents may be deliberately or accidentally untrue. Trademarks and other things belong to their owners, if any.
