Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> 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.
That's an interesting idea, but it is not what is written there: the
APSL talks about using the software in any way to provide a service.
So when considering the question "Is Joe using the software in any way
to provide a service?", is "No" an answer you find reasonable? Can
you truly state "Joe is not using the software in any way to provide a
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.
That's an interesting idea. It's not obvious to me how to interpret
it; I'll have to think about it some more.
>> 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?
It's a convenient test, seems intuitively reasonable, and puts the GNU
GPL2, BSD, Artistic, etc. licenses on one side, and all those which
distribute against fields of endeavor on the other.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
