[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes: > Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> How about a web server, instead? Do you think that >> using a web server to make your content available to others qualifies >> as providing a service? Do you think Apple thinks so? >> >> In the list you referenced, the service goes electronic when Joe >> receives the document via email, munges it, and sends it back. > > So a hypothetical Amazon 1990, which receives a request over e-mail > and responds by sending a package via physical mail, is not an > electronic service? Neither is Gutenberg-USPS, which will e-mail me a > document in response to a physical request, no SASE required? Given that I think the license is vague & needs clarification, I'll assume you're asking what I think should be the case, not what the license says. Because, as I said, the license is ambiguous. As I see it we can either trust Apple[1], try to get clarification, or give up on the license. So no, neither of those should qualify as external deployment. [1] As I said before, this may not be as unreasonable as it sounds since Apple will possibly be on the receiving end of the license as well. >> Even there, I think it's hard to claim that Joe is using the >> "Covered Code, alone or as part of a Larger Work, in any way to >> provide a service." > > This confuses me. How can you not say, when Joe's using the covered > code to perform typesetting for others, that he's not using it in any > way to provide a service? As I see it, yes, there is a difference. In one case it's automatic, and the typesetting code is itself providing a service -- i.e., it's directly being used by the customer. In the other Joe is interacting with the typesetting code, not the customer, so Joe is providing the service. >> It's a restriction, yes. And not one I particularly like, if the >> truth be known. But the analogy between this restriction and the >> source-redistribution restriction of the GPL is simply too strong for >> me to ignore it. If you assume that the definition of "Externally >> Deploy" (or more specifically, "provide a service") is going to be >> reasonable I have trouble seeing where you can say it's not DFSG free. > > Copyright law does not grant any control over a third party's use, but > only on modification and distribution. The GNU GPL's > source-redistribution requirement only kicks in when attempting to do > something normally forbidden by copyright law. That is, it lifts the > barrier of copyright law, but only part way. The APSL refers several times to performance, which suggests that they intend a public-performance argument to use that to back up this requirement. > The above paragraph mostly says that the APSL is a bad idea and may be > unenforceable; if you don't buy that, at least consider the original > argument: that a restriction in addition to those imposed by copyright > law is necessarily non-free. Why? -- Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
