Must publish vs. must supply

[David Johnson]

On Tuesday 11 March 2003 09:59 pm, Chris F Clark wrote:
> David Johnson writes:
> > The FSF makes a (wise) distinction between privacy and secrecy. The
> > boundaries between the two are the boundaries between the private
> > and public spheres.
>
> A reasonable distinction.  This brings up the question of where the
> private and public spheres end.
>
> Personally, the boundaries of a corporation (or any group) do not
> create a privacy boundary.  By acting as a group, the individuals
> have made their actions public.  Individuals may have the right to
> assemble, but they do not have blanket rights as a group (and in
> particular, when acting in concert their rights are specifically
> restricted).

I agree absolutely! But the FSF and many other licensors do not. The 
reason they do not is because they are looking at it through the eyes 
of "license holders" as opposed to "individuals". A corporation may 
consist of distinct individuals performing deeds in public, but it is 
still a single license holder.

This raises a whole bunch of other thorny issues. At my work we have a 
single "license" for GNUPro. There is a copy available on the company 
network that I can copy to a CD and take home with me. Is mycompany 
obligated to allow me to do this? I wouldn't think so. In which case, 
would it be "theft" if I made a copy anyway? If so, what exactly am I 
"stealing"?

> My only point in entering this debate was to point out that the
> license restrictions suggested by Abe Kornalis do reflect that legal
> precedent and also reflect the desires of other software authors.
> Restricting the rights of others to make secret (and perhaps even
> private) derived works is a right that copyright law has established
> is within the authors domain. 

True, but legal precedence is not a guarantee of OSD compliance.

Of course, I am not arguing that must-publish clauses are against the 
OSD (even though it may sound like I am). My personal opinion is that I 
don't like them, and would not touch source code covered under one with 
a ten foot pole. But many such clauses may indeed meet the OSD. It 
would depend on the method required to publish.

There is no specific section of the OSD that a generic must-publish 
clause conflicts with. However, it may very well conflict with the 
unwritten rule that "there shall be no onerous restrictions."

> Again, a personal request: Please do not send me personal copies of
> mail that are also sent to the list.

Ooops!

-- 
David Johnson
___________________
http://www.usermode.org
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3