license idea (revised)
dagon at dagon.net
Wed Jul 16 20:59:31 UTC 2003
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Ryo Chijiiwa wrote:
> Would it be possible to have a license identical to the GPL, except one
> which has provisions for deployment of software, rather than the
> distribution of binary executables?
It would be possible to have such a license. I would object to it on the
grounds that it restricts usage (which you're calling "deployment" of the
software), but I'm not sure everyone agrees with me.
> Web-base applications written in
> languages like PHP do not have binary distributions. However, the act
> of deploying web applications, that is, the act of making a software
> available for use by others, is analogous to the distribution of
> compiled binaries.
I strongly disagree that these acts are analogous.
> This is troublesome not just because of branding, but also because I've
> noticed organizations making significant proprietary changes to the
> software, which aren't available to the community (which I think runs
> counter to the spirit of the GPL).
I think that most agree this to be antisocial on the part of those people.
I don't think that most agree that the requirement to give source and
distribution rights to all users is an acceptible solution. Personally, I
would be very sad if OSI approved such a license.
This has been discussed a bit on debian-legal, under the heading "ASP
loophole". One interesting question is where to draw the line between use
and "deployment". This e-mail was routed along a box at my ISP that
includes open-source code. Do I have the right to that code?
My strong recommendation: Ignore antisocial users (whether they be
individuals or corporations). The community has it's own strengths, the
vast majority of which come from freely-chosen cooperation. Trying to
make software less useful in order to protect your revenue or brand is
Mark Rafn dagon at dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/>
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
More information about the License-discuss