Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Scripsit Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> I'm saying that in the most typical case, these folks will have big >> servers & big pipes. I'm certainly not saying that it's ideal that >> only folks with big servers and big pipes be able to provide ASP >> services. > > What you seem to be saying is that you consider it OK if a > (purportedly free) license effectively prevents people *without* > big servers and big pipes from using/modifying the software. > > Well, that's probably not what you mean, but it's the consequence of > the "this is free enough, because it will not be hard to satisfy for > people who do have sexy hardware" line of reasoning. You may want to go back and reread the message in question, I have a feeling you saw the bit about folks with big pipes and didn't read on about folks with smaller pipes. I gave suggested several ways in which things could be made easier: * If no changes have been made to the source, a URL to upstream may be sufficient. * If changes have been made and upstream incorporates them, a URL may still be sufficient. * If upstream doesn't incorporate the patches, distribution of patches along with the URL of upstream may be enough. * If even distribution of patches is onerous, include a written offer option, ala the GPL. * Going yet farther, a license may include a time delay (of one month, for example) before source distribution is required. I don't see that combination of options an onerous, even for folks with small pipes. Do you? If you think so, tell me who's going to have trouble meeting *any* of these requirements. -- Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
