On Sun, 9 Feb 2003, Don Armstrong wrote: > This section has the same issues that the APSL has. IE, it fails the > two person variant of the desert island test. Why people keep > introducing this onerous term into their licenses is beyond me.
There are two ways this might be read. "must make modifications available to the upstream" is agreed as a non-starter. "must make source available to users in addition to distribution recipients" seems a lot more reasonable to me. It passes the desert island test, but is a use restriction, so it's hard to do under pure copyright. And perhaps not free, but I'd argue that this is not necessarily so. The distinction between distributing a package and making a service available feels pretty unimportant and arbitrary to a lot of folks. I understand (some of) the history and law behind it, but I find it unfortunate that a company can sell a service based on modified GPL code without making the source available to users of the service. -- Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.dagon.net/>
