>>>>> "rl" == Rob Lanphier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
rl> To be clear, it pretty much already says that. Specifically: [...] rl> So, the gulf here is not as wide as some may think. I believe rl> I understand the beef; proponents of the "Chinese dissident" rl> litmus test would prefer that source code only be distributed rl> to those that receive the binaries or, in this case, receive rl> the services rendered. We're evaluating some language there. Well, I can see that the RPSL talks about making modifications "publicly available", which is IMHO cumbersome. The GPL does not. Moreover, the distinction between "binaries" and "services" is relevant, because GPLv2 (don't know about v3) doesn't oblige you to redistribuite your source code modifications if you use the modified binary to erogate network services (for example, I don't think I'm obliged to distribute my patches to a GPL web server just because I use it to distribute web content). I could stand corrected on this issue, however. So even if you removed the "publicly available" clause (and oblige users to redistribute modifications only to recipients of the modified binaries) you still have the problem that the chinese dissident would be obliged to furnish his/her modifications to everyone who (for example) looks to a streaming video s/he has produced. And this means, modulo using Freenet :), that the anonymous dissident won't be anonymous for long. I think everything would be much simpler if you just removed the "publicly available" clause, and turned it into "available to recipients of the modified binaries" (and not services). I have the impression that you are trying to avoid "evil" parties to modify RPSL-covered code and keep their modifications private, while still erogating services using their modifications. But my experience is that those who understand how libre software works usually "play nice", and that it's usually easier to have modifications and improvements fed back into your codebase if you don't make people feel like they are obliged to do so. Closing the ASP loophole - like you are trying to do by talking about "services" erogation in addition to simple binaries "distribution" - is a good thing. But I think that you, as a company, should encourage the "giving back" instead of forcing people to do so. You could do that by furnishing infrastructural help for the project (like you are already doing), test machines, and so on. This way, you'll be recognized as the "lead" for libre audio/video streaming and you will get modifications back in not because people are forced, but because they think it's worth. In the long run it's much better for Helix to thrive (the fact that some licenses don't allow you to copy programs hasn't but an end to piracy, nor is it going to do it soon). What do other people here think? What does the FSF think? PS does anybody know why the "chinese dissident" test has that "chinese" sticked to it? I find it a bit simplicistic. :) Best regards, -- Andrea Glorioso [EMAIL PROTECTED] Centro Tempo Reale http://www.centrotemporeale.it/ AGNULA/DeMuDi Technical Manager http://www.[demudi|agnula].org/ "There's no free expression without control on the tools you use"