Question on OSD #5

[David Woolley]

Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
> 
> I hadn’t considered that you might tell or expect the recipient not to 
> ask for
> 

Telling wouldn't be appropriate, but there are many contexts where it is 
most unlikely that the recipient would want to look inside the software 
or redistribute it.  The downside, is that you then have to supply 
source code not only to the original recipient, but to anyone downstream 
of them.  TiVo largely got away with this strategy, but eventually had 
to make the source available.

I'd also think that placing it on a system high network would limit 
leakage; you just couldn't use copyright violation as one of the charges.

 > The term “need to know” has specific meaning with regard to
 > classification of information.

I don't think that differs much from commercial attitudes.  Most 
businesses don't like giving out more technical details than are needed 
to operate the software (which unfortunately they generally 
underestimate).  Open source businesses are an exception.


-- 
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.