> Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Here's a mere consequence: If Debian is persuaded that the APSL 2.0 is > > DFSG-free then a subsequent revision of the GPL with the addition of a > > viral electronic service clause would also be DFSG-free.
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, MJ Ray wrote: > It is expected that GPL-3 will contain something similar to the Affero GPL > requirement for remote services to offer users the code. Indeed, and this is the primary reason I recommend authors NOT add the "or any later version" when choosing GPLv2. > Do you object to that? If so, why? Vehemently. It removes the ability of users to privately modify work, which IMO is simply not free. Almost any piece of software in a business is used (indirectly in many cases, but used nonetheless) by most of it's customers. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200303/msg00805.html is a list of software "uses" that are hard to distinguish from each other in a license, so would all require full source to be made publicly available. > I think you are unwise to throw words like "leeches" and "viral" around > so freely. That sort of thing spoiled an otherwise interesting email > for me. Is there any possible reason to prefer this requirement other than to punish "leeches"? This seems a hugely bad motivation for a major license change. -- Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.dagon.net/>
