Must publish vs. must supply

[John Cowan]

Abe Kornelis scripsit:

> > The GPL and the OSL take what I consider to be a reasonable attitude:
> > you must supply changes in source form to people who have received
> > the changed version.   If the changed version is published to all, the
> > changes must also be; if the changed version is distributed to a few,
> > ditto the changes; if the changed version is never distributed, the
> > changed version need not be either.
> --> I understand that - it is one of my problems with these licenses:
>       I'd really hate it if modifications were to be distributed within
>       a closed group - not to the public that is. 

We must distinguish between "to a few" and "to a closed group".  Since the
software is open-source, everyone has the right to distribute it further
with or without changes.  Speaking of a "closed group" would imply that
the people that I distribute to would have no right to distribute outside
the group, which is abhorrent to the nature of Open Source.

What I was talking about, rather, was the opportunity to make a few
changes and pass along changes and changed version to my friends,
without being asked to make them available on a Web site too.  Of course
my friends can send to other friends, and so on.  Or they can post the
changed version (and the changes) on their own Web site, and so on.

Therefore, there is no discrimination; I am simply limited in my obligations
such that I only have to distribute the changes with the changed version, and
all is done.

> > This is quite separate from the question of whether the change is
> > *licensed* to all.  No matter what the distribution conditions, anyone
> > who has possession of the change is licensed to use it.
> --> I agree with the latter, but don't understand the first remark.
>       As far as I can see, all OSI-compliant distros are licensed
>       to the receiver, which makes 'distributing to' functionally
>       equivalent to 'licensing to' - except where receiver does not
>       comply with the license's restrictions, but that's not (yet)
>       relevant when the software is distributed.

Yes, you are correct.  I simply wanted to point out that the fact that my
changes to a GPLed program are licensed for use by all does not mean that
I myself have an affirmative duty to make them available to all.

>       Anyway, I was rather thinking of making things optional:
>       1) keep changes private - no distribution at all
>       2) distribute to the public
>       3) distribute & supply to copyright owner
>       Option 1 is obvious, the main difference between choices
>       2 and 3 would be the requirement to make the modifications
>       public *yourself* or allow the copyright holder to do so
>       in your stead. If you already have a site option 2 might be
>       more attractive, if you don't have a site, or you have one
>       that is not related to the changes or the software, then
>       option 3 might be more attractive since it'd be less of a
>       hassle. Is it a bad idea to allow the contributor a choice as
>       to how the changes are to be made public?

I think this is a good feature.

> --> Sorry, John. I disagree. I know a few companies who would be
>        willing to pick up my code, fork it and distribute it both to their
>        customers and to their advantage - and never give anything back.

Yes, there are malicious people in the world, certainly.

>        As far as I'm concerned, they can make it proprietary if they
>        want to - but *not* under an open-source license!

Fair enough.

-- 
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