On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 10:34:27PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > 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?
Not really, since it's my time that I'm concerned about, and time can't be recouped. Here's a case that I'd remembered vaguely but havn't been able to find again until now: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00369.html In this case, the only realistic way to fulfill this type of "source to network users" requirement is by some other channel than the actual network. Costs aside, spamming the source at the SMS receiver is useless; it needs to be sent to a computer. This isn't a matter of resources; the very medium itself is not designed for the transmission of source code, and a "make the source available on the same medium" could make use in this context not onerous, but impossible, and I think that's a clear non-free boundary. I don't think an alternative, "make it available by some medium"--for example, setting up a webserver and pointing to it--is reasonable, since it boils down to "if you run an SMS server, you must also run a webserver". That becomes an unrecoupable expense if nobody actually downloads it. If I'm not already running a webserver, merely setting one up will cost me monthly. (I'm hoping that we agree that "you must run a file distribution server if you use this software" is non-free, at least.) As for "make an offer": just as I don't consider the GPL's "3-year offer" requirement free on its own[1], I wouldn't consider the same requirement free in this context: every time I modify the software and install it on my server, I'd have to archive the source, just in case somebody requests that revision. As a side argument, even making such an offer is costly in this context. I don't think I'd buy the argument that "but we allow that with the GPL" (that is, we allow it to require the copyright/output blurb, which is comparable to requiring an output of an offer of source), because I don't think many people have seriously considered the GPL's output blurbs in this context. [1] refresher: as we've discussed elsewhere, requiring that I archive the source for every binary I distribute for several years is unreasonable; fortunately, GPL#3a makes this irrelevant > 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. I personally don't tend to think that requiring that I include a CD along with a handout is reasonable; it's just a battle that I've never had the inclination to fight. > Personally, I don't think this is a use restriction, because I think > using software to provide services to others goes beyond your own use, > since it involves others; those others deserve freedom as well. The purpose of the restriction isn't what makes it a use restriction or not. If it restricts use, it's a use restriction. This says "if you use this program to generate stuff for others, do this and that"; that's a use restriction by my understanding, just as is "you may not use this software to spam". -- Glenn Maynard
