Walter Landry wrote: > Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >>>Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. >>>>""" >>> >>>So if I use software under such a license in a network switch, to whom >>>am I obliged to distribute source? How about a web proxy? >> >>My _intent_ with the phrase "direct use" was to avoid such issues. I'm >>aiming only for the case where a user directly _interacts_ with the >>software, so perhaps I should have said "direct interaction" instead of >>"direct use". > > It is difficult for me to see how you define "direct use" to include > something like Apache, but not include something like libc or the > kernel.
That's exactly why I corrected it to "direct interaction". Although it would be useful to require distribution of a modified libc as well, since it would be linked into Apache under this license. > It seems a bit of a stretch to require people to distribute > those when they are just running a webserver. It would make it much, > much, much, much harder to set up a public website. Consider that 99.9% of sites don't have a locally modified Apache, and could just say "unmodified, get it from apache.org" (or their distribution's Apache package, if they got it from a distribution). - Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
