On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 05:47:21AM -0500, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: > But that's exactly the error we reprimand legislators and businesses > for: believing that a different medium requires new laws to make it > safe. That I receive the output of software over HTTP should change > nothing from the cases where I received that output over a phone tree > or on paper.
That's not really the "ASP loophole" AIUI. Think remote procedure call, not
browsing a website.
The idea is that:
(a) gcc -o foo foo.o bar-gpl.o forms a work (foo) based on bar-gpl.o
and thus that people should make the full source of foo available
(b) gcc -o foo foo.o -lbar-gpl is much the same as the above
gcc -o foo bar-gpl.o -lfoo is also much the same as the above
(c) Making use of bar() from bar-gpl.so is much the same as doing
something like the following in foo.java:
import java.rmi.*;
...
// get bar from the network
BarInterface bar =
(BarInterface) Naming.lookup("//rmi.bar.com/Bar");
bar.bar();
> That, in itself, makes a good argument for why the author should have
> no ability to place an obligation on anybody under a Free Software
> license.
Software licenses are, almost by definition, the author placing
obligations on everyone.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations --
you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
pgp66ELHwzDbo.pgp
Description: PGP signature
