Must publish vs. must supply

[John Cowan]

Chris F Clark scripsit:

> Clearly the FSF has decided that hording of software by corporations
> (as long as they don't distribute it) should be one of their freedoms.

The same applies to individuals.  Do you want to be required to publish
every little dink you make to GPLed software?  How often?  With what
granularity?  After every change?  After every CVS commit?

I continue to think the GPL's attitude sensible: if you distribute the
program, you must distribute the source.

> I find that a curious point, since as I understand it, the original
> impetus for the movement was some code that one corporation provided
> to Richard Stallman in source could not be used with another
> corporation's machine.

No, the problem was that no source was available for the printer driver, so
that its deficiencies couldn't be changed.

> To me hording is hording and if one creates a derived work of open
> software (thus becoming an author), then one should be willing to
> share the results with others.  If software wants to be free (as
> someone once said), then it seems philosophically wrong to me to allow
> software to be imprisoned by a select group of people, just because we
> have decided they are "end" users.  

There is no question of imprisonment.  No one should be forced to become
a distributor, IMHO; those who distribute can reasonably be expected to
be willing to incur certain obligations.

-- 
Some people open all the Windows;       John Cowan
wise wives welcome the spring           jcowan at reutershealth.com
by moving the Unix.                     http://www.reutershealth.com
  --ad for Unix Book Units (U.K.)       http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
        (see http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/unix3image.gif)
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3