OSD modification regarding what license can require of user

[Russell Nelson]

Richard Stallman writes:
 > The reason we've decided that this ASP requirement is legitimate is
 > that it is a matter of requiring making the modified source code
 > available in a case of public use.  It extends existing GPL
 > requirements coherently to a new scenario of usage.

We've never intentionally approved use-restricted licenses before.
Several non-free licenses have been put before us, which had use
restrictions (using the same justification you are currently using).
We didn't approve those licenses.  I will vote against approving the
GPLv3 if it imposes restrictions on users.

 > It would be wrong to require publication of modified versions
 > that are used privately, but inviting the public to use a server
 > is not private use.

I'm not sure that the GPL-using community is going to agree with you
on this.  For example, if someone decides to distribute Linux under
the GPLv3, and someone else runs it on a server, are they bound by the 
GPLv3 to become a Linux distributor?  I haven't seen it, so I'm just
speculating.

-- 
-russ nelson              http://russnelson.com | Crypto without a threat
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | model is like cookies
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | without milk.
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   | 
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3