Justin Wells wrote: > Maybe all is not lost. I can put a controversial statement like this in: > > In addition, there is no right of public performance granted to > such non-free derived works. > > This stops running the non-free derived work on a public application > server. It doesn't stop people from running it in their own CORBA server > and linking to it--but maybe that route is closer to derivation. Nobody knows what "public performance" means in case of a program; you are on very shaky ground legally. > It also hurts. You can't run the non-free work on a public webserver. You > can only use it on a private server, an internal network, etc. It could be interpreted to mean that such a program cannot be used on a publicly available workstation, such as one in a library or @-cafe. > -- Can a statement like this live in an opensource license? It doesn't seem to violate the letter or the spirit of the OSD. > -- Can you think of another way to do what I want? Namely, to restrict > peoples ability to fork the code, other than via the free license? The LGPL. -- Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis vom dies! || John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, || http://www.reutershealth.com Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Und trank die Milch vom Paradies. -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)
