En r�ponse � Forrest J Cavalier III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > "Free Software Foundation Announces Support of the Affero General > Public License, the First Copyleft License for Web Services" > > http://www.fsf.org/press/2002-03-19-Affero.html > > (NOTE: The FSF suggests comments to them. I CC'ed them, but > I'd prefer discussion in a forum. license-discuss seems > appropriate.) > > Please, someone tell me how I am misreading the added clause > 2(d). > > Where are the teeth? In my reading, the essence of the interesting > part of clause 2(d) is > "must offer an ... opportunity ... to request > immediate transmission ... of the complete source code." > > I find it _extremely_ odd that it does not compel transmission. > (Other GPL terms are clear that you must supply source code. This > clause is different. Why?) > > If compelling the transmission is the goal, why is the license > clause only compelling the "offer of opportunity to request"? > > Is this on purpose? Why create a huge loophole when it could > have been written clearly? > > As an exercise, could someone explain why the following response is > _not_ compliant with 2(d)? > > int main(int argc,char **argv) > { > printf ("We received your request for the complete source > code.\n"); > printf ("<BR>AGPL 2(d) does not obligate us to supply it when > responding.\n"); > printf ("<BR>Have a nice day!\n"); > }
Because as the software is GPLed, you must supply the source code on request. Now maybe the word immediate is not good in that case. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
