David Johnson wrote: > > > Clause 2.2d merely requires a prominent notice of the license for binary > > > only deployments. It can only be triggered by the creation of a > > > derivative work, since compilation is considered derivation. > > > > I prefer this to the proposed GPL change. A whole lot. Is there anything > > I should know before I write Eben and Richard to tell them that? > > Apropos a recent discussion here, I think it hinges upon whether or not the > user has the right to create derivative works in private. 17 USC 117 *might* > suggest that compiling the source code in order to run it on one's own > computer is the right of the user, and not the author's privilege to restrict.
Where does this leave scripted applications, which don't get compiled? Emile -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
