Hello Mike, > --- Wolfram Kleff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > With GPL it would be no problem to distribute such stuff and the > > author(s) > > have no chance to prevent such distribution! > > Please consider that the PSI license is intended for high-security > > and > > critical software, not for "normal" software. > > Dear Wolfram, > > this sounds like what I am proposing with an alternative solution > http://fsedu.org/fsedu.pl?ContentDelivery
To my understanding this is some sort of DRM technique which is much more strict than what I intend with the PSI license. > I dont think that you are right about the GPL, I think you are looking > to copyright for a solution for an EULA. If EULA is really legal in international law is quite controversial. Don't forget that there are even many differences between USA-law and EU-law not to mention the large differences in international laws. That's why the PSI license is rules based which should be adaptive to most law-systems. > You need a stronger agreement to bind all the networked users to single > agreed on version of the software for the duration of the transation > and a means to audit that software. Well, I try it with cooperation. And I think there are more not-so-strict ways to get cooperation. > The gpl is fine for what it does, trying to make that a stronger > contract is dangerous. Thats a misunderstanding. I'm not trying to improve, alter or change the GPL. And I don't intend to make a stronger contract or force people. The intention is that people who violate the security loose at least their right to use the software. And in very hard cases it's possible to accuse them at court (or tribunal >;-) ). > at least in my opinion, I am not a lawyer. > mike > > > ===== > James Michael DuPont > http://introspector.sourceforge.net/ Thanks for your opinion, Wolfram -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
