Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As you said, that's not a criteria Debian can use; you need to quantify > exactly what fails your "I'd cease using and/or modifying a work" > critera. If anything that requires you to provide source for the server > software you use to those who interact with that server would fail it, > then no license that attempted to cover providing source to users of a > service would ever fulfill your criteria. I personally think that > requirement is reasonable.
Just as Glenn's personal preferences are too fuzzy to work for Debian, so is your definition of "users of a service." You need to specify very clearly what you mean to include and what you don't. I don't think any definition can incorporate a reasonable number of users without being non-free, but I am interested to see the attempt. > However, you didn't respond to the fact that you are allowed to > recoup your costs; does that affect your argument that a requirement to > distribute source is excessively burdensome? Individual cost isn't enough; the cost of providing source to a billion people is much higher than a billion times the cost of providing source to one person. > What if you are distributing a book, or a handout, or a flyer, or a > reference card, and you suddenly have to either include a CD of source > with every copy, or include an offer to provide source? That could > certainly be considered onerous, and yet it is considered to be Free. That's the only way to get the recipient freedom. Giving source to a user doesn't even guarantee him freedom. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
