On Friday 22 September 2006 03:34, Markus Laire wrote: > While the (current draft of) GPLv3 doesn't require you to give access > to the source code in this case, it does allow an additional > requirement which would require that (See section 7.b.4 below)
Your right, the provision does make things a bit messier, now that I look closer. Although, I think I could have a fun time arguing what "a modified version of the material they cover is a work intended to interact with users through a computer network" is supposed to mean. Also, the entire approach to Sec 7 is interesting, as it allows for additional terms, but doesn't actually provide those terms. It would be insufficient to say in your license, "This license enforces 7.b.4" All 7.b appears to do is permit additional terms which enforce those additional restrictions. It will still fall to the licensor to come up with the additional terms. Which means that there will probably be a wide range of different takes on language. > So in the end the result is quite different from GPLv2. With GPLv2 you > never had to give access to the source code in this case. With GPLv3 > you need to check whether the code you received includes this > additional restriction or not. Well, "quite" different is a bit of an overstatement. It will be very interesting to see how these optional provisions play out. In my experience the folks who are most interested in locking down their software with these sorts of restrictions also produce some of the least interesting stuff. > -- > Markus Laire > Disclaimer: IANAL Disclaimer.... I'm just waiting to hear about my Bar results :) -- Sean Kellogg c: 831.818.6940 e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] w: http://blog.probonogeek.org/ So, let go ...Jump in ...Oh well, what you waiting for? ...it's all right ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown
