Must publish vs. must supply

[Chris F Clark]

On Wednesday 12 March 2003 01:34 pm, Abe Kornelis wrote (editted
silight by me in []:

>        I'll stress my point one last time (you're bored stiff
> already, I don't doubt) I would offer the recipients of my software
> three choices:
>        1) make no modifications.
>        2) make mods and keep them private [under what conditions?]
>        3) make mods and publish to the public, either by 
>             [3a.] publishing yourself 
>           or by 
>             [3b.] passing a copy of the modifications to me.

Obviously, item 2 must be under some restrictions, or there isn't any
"must" in your 3.  My feeling is that a license that allows only 1,
3a, and 3b is still open source (since the choice of 3a/3b) keeps the
must restriction on musy-supply/must-public from being too onerous
(well, that actually depends on how 3a and 3b "can" be acceptably
accomplished under the license).

I know that some/many people might object to a license that allows
only 1 & 3, and it would not be a free license.  Still, I do think it
matches a model of sharing. It simply puts the point of where you have
violated the author's copyrights at a different point (and that point
matches my mental model).  

Moreover, I have no qualms that it prevents Chinese dissidents (or Al
Queda memebers or whomever) from making private derived works.  That
is the intent.  (Not specifically to penalize them, but to prevent
others who can currently legally make private derived works of open
source software form doing so with my software.)  If doing something
is illegal (or otherwise problematic) for someone, I have no desire to
enable them to do it, by using a license that allows them to do it in
private (since that right of privacy can be abused by others who I do
not wish to have it).  I would be saddened to find out, that I was
required to give them that right of privacy to consider the license
open source (as I might not then be able to distribute my software as
open source).

-Chris Clark

One personal aside:  I have been greatly pleased that the participants
in this debate have chosen to try to consider the merits of each point
soberly and with a minimum of inflammatory rhetoric.  I understand
that many of these points are volatile and could easily produce more
heat than light  Thank you.
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3