OSD modification regarding what license can require of user

[John Cowan]

Bruce Perens scripsit:

> The assignment is to propose a modification to the OSD to make explicit
> the implicit prohibition in the OSD on odious requirements on the user.
> The examples of odious user requirements that are brought up most often
> are badgeware ("if you use this software, put my icon on your home page")
> and spyware (the Bitkeeper reporting feature), but there have been others.

Mooseware, e.g.  But I don't see why the Apache license isn't badgeware.

> Nintendo claimed that the Goloob cartrige was a derivative work,
> Goloob disagreed. The judge found for Goloob. The judge made a point of
> noting that this case should not be considered to be definitive.

This sounds on all fours with the claim that patches are not derivative
works (with which I agree): they make only fair use of the original.

> Let's consider also the "ASP problem". Somebody makes extensive changes
> to a GPL work, and deploys that work as a service, perhaps via .NET, rather
> than distributing the work. This circumvents the GPL because the GPL terms
> activate upon distribution. 

I don't understand how this breaches the spirit of the GPL any more than
providing ASP-style access to the unmodified work does (i.e. not at all).
If you are free to make private mods to GPLed programs for your own
use, why not for others' use?  This is just timesharing under a new name.

-- 
John Cowan <jcowan at reutershealth.com>     http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith.  --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3