> Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200303/msg00805.html > > is a list of software "uses" that are hard to distinguish from each > > other in a license, so would all require full source to be made publicly > > available.
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote: > What are you trying to say here? > > * That providing a service in this context necessarily includes the > mail-order typesetting scenario? Of course it does. Why would delivery via paper confer fewer rights on the user than delivery by email or HTTP? > * That what "providing a service" means here isn't really nailed down, > and reasonable people might include the mail-order typesetting > scenario? Certainly true. > * That even though reasonable people would disagree, we can't trust > Apple (or other licensors) not to include the mail-order typesetting > scenario in "providing a service"? Also true, but I think it's more about the fundamental problem that this is a non-free restriction than about abuse by licensors. > If it's the first, I think you're being silly. Perhaps, but I'm not laughing. I honestly don't see why you'd expect, for example, someone who gets a statement electronically to have more access to a billing system than someone who gets it via snail-mail. > If it's the second, > I'm sceptical, but willing to listen to more argument. I believe myself to be reasonable, and I don't see any fundamental difference between delivering printeed page of output and viewing a webpage of output. Both are use of software, and neither should require distribution of the software so used. -- Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.dagon.net/>