On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 07:45:03PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > 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)
And indeed, given the classification of software as a literary work, I am not at all convinced that it is possible to write a license with a restriction that closes the "remote application hole". -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
