* Josh Triplett: > 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. > """
I can understand the rationale behind such clauses, but I consider them a severe threat to free software. Right now, I'm not forced to deal with license issues if I'm not distributing anything, and I really like this aspect.
