Must publish vs. must supply

[Abe Kornelis]

John,

thanks again, and once more please find my comments inserted below.

----- Original Message -----
From: John Cowan <jcowan at reutershealth.com>


> 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.
--> My apologies for incorrect choice of wording - english is not
      a native language for me. When I said 'closed group'  I
      intended a selected audience. And even if the receiving
      audience is allowed to redistribute, they very likely will
      refrain from doing so. Not wanting to compromise
      the relation with their software supplier being one fairly
      good reason, habitual secretiveness another one,
      and avoiding to be seen as untrustworthy or undependable
      by their own customers as yet another (very good)
      reason for that. Thus, a selected group effectively
      does not really differ from a closed group.

> 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.
--> That would all be quite ok, except that I would like to see
       any changes that are distributed at all being made available
       to the public. How this is to be done, is a choice you can
       make yourself - either hand it to me or publish it on the web.

> 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.
--> Well, even when discrimination is not formally present,
      it still happens effectively. E.g. when part-time workers
      receive fewer bonuses it will hurt women more than men,
      since most men work full-time while lots of women work
      part-time. (Sorry for the generalization - just trying to
      make it less abstract)

> > > 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.
--> In general terms: yes I agree. When it comes to the BXAPL
      proposal: no, you would have an obligation to either publish to the
      public or not at 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.
--> Thank you.

Kind regards, Abe.



--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3