Josh Triplett writes: > How about something vaguely like: > > """ > If you make the software or a work based on the software available for > direct use by another party, without actually distributing the software > to that party, you must either: > > a) Distribute the complete corresponding machine-readable source code > publically under this license, or > b) Make the source code available to that party, under the all the same > conditions you would need to meet in GPL section 3 if you were > distributing a binary to that party. > """
For the purposes of making it a purely copyright based license, it is probably desirable to only have such a clause kick in for works based on the software. Use (whether by the recipient or by third parties) of software is not, as far as I know, a right reserved under copyright law -- but preparing a derived work is. At least one previous discussion has mentioned "public performance" of a work being controlled by copyright, and using this as a lever to achieve the above. My reading of 17 USC 106(4) suggests that this is not applicable to software. (See http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/106.html) Michael Poole
