Richard Stallman writes: > The reason we've decided that this ASP requirement is legitimate is > that it is a matter of requiring making the modified source code > available in a case of public use. It extends existing GPL > requirements coherently to a new scenario of usage.
We've never intentionally approved use-restricted licenses before. Several non-free licenses have been put before us, which had use restrictions (using the same justification you are currently using). We didn't approve those licenses. I will vote against approving the GPLv3 if it imposes restrictions on users. > It would be wrong to require publication of modified versions > that are used privately, but inviting the public to use a server > is not private use. I'm not sure that the GPL-using community is going to agree with you on this. For example, if someone decides to distribute Linux under the GPLv3, and someone else runs it on a server, are they bound by the GPLv3 to become a Linux distributor? I haven't seen it, so I'm just speculating. -- -russ nelson http://russnelson.com | Crypto without a threat Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | model is like cookies 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | without milk. Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
