On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 04:49:31PM -0800, David M.Besonen wrote: > in the meanwhile, how would *you* word language in the gplv3 that > would cover this loophole (that's what i would call it)?
I'm not sure it's possible to require people running webservers with hosted applications to release their source, without causing practical problems as a side-effect. I'm undecided on whether I'd go as far as Mark in saying that the goal itself is non-free, but I havn't seen an incarnation yet without secondary ill effects. > is there a general sense in the debian-legal community that modifying > gpl'd apps and then hosting them without releasing the modified source > is undesirable? That's a question of the goals of copyleft, which is something d-legal usually stays out of. We don't encourage copyleft any more than permissive licenses; they're both just fine. Similarly, we're not likely to encourage a super-copyleft that does what you say, above the GPL. We look at restrictions, and try to make sure that their restrictions are acceptable, but lack of copyleft is not considered a flaw. (Due to the fact that Free Software has a substantial number of people both of the copyleft view and the permissive view, this is the only way we can all get along. :) -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
