"Arc Riley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This thread has slipped into absurdity.
That largely seems to be the result of talking past each other. > These fringe cases with the viewpoint that free software copyright > holders are just biting at the bit to take people to court > retroactively for short-term lack of compliance at no fault of the > software modifier. Whether such cases are "at no fault of the software modifier" is a significant point of difference, as I see it. The AGPL requires the software redistributor to make corresponding source available to a remote user of the program. We have yet to see any indication that failing to make such modifications available on request is allowed by the license. > If such a situation arose where a copyright holder did start > engaging in "vengence litigation" I don't see why you think "vengeance litigation" (whatever that may be) is the consideration here. We're trying to determine whether a work under the license is free, and examining the effect that enforcement of the license terms would have on the freedom of the work. Whether you consider such enforcement likely or not seems irrelevant to this point. -- \ “I have the simplest tastes. I am always satisfied with the | `\ best.” —Oscar Wilde | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
