> Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Ok, so as long as someone presses a button as part of the process, this > > requirement doesn't kick in? Does this mean moderated lists are > > exempt and unmoderated ones would have to provide source and configuration > > to all users?
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote: > I dunno. Possibly. Frankly, this case doesn't interest me much; I > can see it going either way and both are fairly reasonable. Why does > it matter? Partly because I'm curious where you draw the line, and partly to show at least one of the the problems with such a requirement. It only kicks in when the system is used for what computers are good at - automating repetitive tasks. > >> > It's a restriction on use (per definition 1.4 section b). DFSG has > >> > no explicit item that use of the software must not be restricted, > >> > but any use restriction completely breaks users' trust of the > >> > freeness of Debian. > > > >> This seems like a very difficult argument to know when to make. > > > > I think it's one that should be made when use restrictions, which normally > > fall outside of copyright law, are part of a license under consideration. > > In the case of the DPSL that's not obvious, since they seem to want to > include restrictions on performance. This is interesting, and AFAIK the first license Debian has considered which makes such a claim (that allowing someone to send input to and recieve output from a program is public performance). > Certainly at one point the argument against use restrictions was made, > but it was because in order to enforce it you'd need something like a > clickwrap rather than simply a license. I read it in reverse. One of the main reasons for a click-through is to limit use (as opposed to copying), and since this can never be free, there's no reason to have a click-through on free software. > But the APSL doesn't do that, that I saw on my quick read-through. So > my understanding (IANAL, of course) is that unless the type of use > they seek to control is prohibited by copyright law (i.e., as public > performance) it has no force anyway. It'll be fun to see if it ever gets tested. I don't know of any other software license that attempts to put such a limit without explicitly claiming that use itself is covered by the license (usually by a click-through or shrink-wrap license, but sometimes just by including a license with the software). I'll be semi-unavailable for a week or so, further replies (from me; I hope others will continue to participate as new points come up) will be sporadic. -- Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.dagon.net/>
