On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Ryo Chijiiwa wrote: > > Would it be possible to have a license identical to the GPL, except one > which has provisions for deployment of software, rather than the > distribution of binary executables?
It would be possible to have such a license. I would object to it on the grounds that it restricts usage (which you're calling "deployment" of the software), but I'm not sure everyone agrees with me. > Web-base applications written in > languages like PHP do not have binary distributions. However, the act > of deploying web applications, that is, the act of making a software > available for use by others, is analogous to the distribution of > compiled binaries. I strongly disagree that these acts are analogous. > This is troublesome not just because of branding, but also because I've > noticed organizations making significant proprietary changes to the > software, which aren't available to the community (which I think runs > counter to the spirit of the GPL). I think that most agree this to be antisocial on the part of those people. I don't think that most agree that the requirement to give source and distribution rights to all users is an acceptible solution. Personally, I would be very sad if OSI approved such a license. This has been discussed a bit on debian-legal, under the heading "ASP loophole". One interesting question is where to draw the line between use and "deployment". This e-mail was routed along a box at my ISP that includes open-source code. Do I have the right to that code? My strong recommendation: Ignore antisocial users (whether they be individuals or corporations). The community has it's own strengths, the vast majority of which come from freely-chosen cooperation. Trying to make software less useful in order to protect your revenue or brand is misguided. -- Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.dagon.net/> -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3