Gabriel Sechan wrote:
From: "John H. Robinson, IV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
country (think China) use and modify the software without having to
reveal their identify?
In the case of *forced* publication of changes, this fails. The LGPL and
GPL both pass this test. As long as you do not distribute the resultant
binary, you are not forced to disclose any modifications. This is
actually A Good Thing.
Forced speech is not Free speech.
But if you're running a public website, you are already not anonymous.
I don't think this is germane to the issue.
Personally I think using it to run a service on a public website *shoul*
equal distribution, but I don't think this is currently the case.
I agree with jhriv (and debian). User has rights to use! Even if
somebody doesn't like (say) how he's using it.
I would even argue that it is not distribution even if the software in
use transmitted components (eg, protocol headers, etc) or other
incidental content in the process of using it for communications.
..jim
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
