Also note hosted applications are no new things, they are even more of
a dying out thing, as in former times it was normal to not have your
own computer but use other people's computers. No free software
license
ever saw a problem with those. Nowadays most people have their own
computers or
* David M.Besonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060204 00:41]:
does the gpl (v2 or v3-draft) address the issue of hosted apps?
The gpl v2 does so perfectly, the v3 draft currently has some clause
that will likely allow making programs non-free by restrict usage as
hosted application.
specifically, does
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 23:16:38 -0800 (PST) Mark Rafn wrote:
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, David M.Besonen wrote:
worded differently, am i the only one that sees hosting gpl'd apps
minus source as permissive and not in the spirit of copyleft?
You are not. Many, including myself, also see it as not
does the gpl (v2 or v3-draft) address the issue of hosted apps?
specifically, does the gpl prevent someone from taking code, modifying
it, and putting it on a server and charging people to use the app
without making the source available?
ciao,
david
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, David M.Besonen wrote:
does the gpl (v2 or v3-draft) address the issue of hosted apps?
GPLv2 does not.
specifically, does the gpl prevent someone from taking code, modifying
it, and putting it on a server and charging people to use the app
without making the source
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 02:52:41PM -0800, David M.Besonen wrote:
does the gpl (v2 or v3-draft) address the issue of hosted apps?
specifically, does the gpl prevent someone from taking code, modifying
it, and putting it on a server and charging people to use the app
without making the source
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 15:57:31 -0800 (PST), Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I'm strongly of the opinion that any attempt to limit
private modification (including hosted apps), or require distribution of
source when not distributing anything else is non-free.
do you consider the gpl to be
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 18:45:29 -0500, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 02:52:41PM -0800, David M.Besonen wrote:
does the gpl (v2 or v3-draft) address the issue of hosted apps?
specifically, does the gpl prevent someone from taking code, modifying
it, and putting it
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 04:49:31PM -0800, David M.Besonen wrote:
in the meanwhile, how would *you* word language in the gplv3 that
would cover this loophole (that's what i would call it)?
I'm not sure it's possible to require people running webservers with
hosted applications to release their
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 04:49:31PM -0800, David M.Besonen wrote:
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 02:52:41PM -0800, David M.Besonen wrote:
does the gpl (v2 or v3-draft) address the issue of hosted apps?
specifically, does the gpl prevent someone from taking code, modifying
it, and putting it on a
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 20:02:20 -0500, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 04:49:31PM -0800, David M.Besonen wrote:
in the meanwhile, how would *you* word language in the gplv3 that
would cover this loophole (that's what i would call it)?
I'm not sure it's possible to
David M.Besonen wrote:
does the gpl (v2 or v3-draft) address the issue of hosted apps?
specifically, does the gpl prevent someone from taking code, modifying
it, and putting it on a server and charging people to use the app
without making the source available?
The GPL version 2 does not. The
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 05:34:01PM -0800, David M.Besonen wrote:
what ill effects would come of saying that if you host a gpl'd app
(modified or not) you have to make the source available?
I explained this in the link I gave you:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00213.html
See
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 17:34:01 -0800, David M.Besonen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
i would think that folks who are into copyleft would see hosting an
app as similar offering it for local usage wrt freedom. i'd love to
hear from any copyleft people in here who are ok with hosted gpl'd
apps and no
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 17:51:25 -0800, Josh Triplett
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL version 2 does not. The GPL version 3 does not directly, but it
permits licensors to add such a condition without being incompatible
with the GPL version 3.
could you point me to this optional clause?
--
To
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 21:09:06 -0500, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 05:34:01PM -0800, David M.Besonen wrote:
what ill effects would come of saying that if you host a gpl'd app
(modified or not) you have to make the source available?
I explained this in the link I
David M.Besonen wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 17:51:25 -0800, Josh Triplett
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL version 2 does not. The GPL version 3 does not directly, but it
permits licensors to add such a condition without being incompatible
with the GPL version 3.
could you point me to this
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 15:57:31 -0800 (PST), Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm strongly of the opinion that any attempt to limit
private modification (including hosted apps), or require distribution of
source when not distributing anything else is non-free.
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, David M.Besonen
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, David M.Besonen wrote:
what ill effects would come of saying that if you host a gpl'd app
(modified or not) you have to make the source available?
Just coming up with a set of definitions to require such a thing is gonna
kill you. Start with available and user. Be sure
19 matches
Mail list logo
