On Wed, 2003-03-19 at 17:24, Mark Rafn wrote:
The written offer option stinks. Ok, that's a pretty weak
counterargument, I'll think more about this.
I'm pretty confident that if 3(a) were not part of the GPL (leaving only
the written offer option), that the license would not meat the DFSG.
On 20030318T175843-0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
I did. I formulated the dissident test long before I even *knew* of
the ASP loophole. I therefore did not formulate it as some strategy
for keeping people from closing it.
Huh?
As you know, logical connectives do not talk about intentions
* Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030318 16:54]:
What if some small individual wants to start a server doing decss.
Not sitting in the USA another place under the jurisdiction of
the large media-industry, there might be nothing doable against him.
If he has to expose the source, he
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Part of the point of free software is that everyone has a software
publishing factory on their desk, and it is the noxious copyright
regime that blocks them from using it.
My server, even if over a tiny pipe, would be useful as an ASP
Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030318 16:54]:
Fine, in this hypothetical if he's unable to provide the source to
folks in the US, the license would not allow him to provide the
service to folks in the US. Exactly analogous to someone trying to
On Wed, 2003-03-19 at 14:52, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
You may want to go back and reread the message in question, I have a
feeling you saw the bit about folks with big pipes and didn't read on
about folks with smaller pipes.
I gave suggested several ways in which things could be made easier:
* Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030319 21:21]:
But at any rate, this isn't a new thing. What you're describing is
just as much a problem with the GPL.
No. Current GPL allows me the described scenario. Forced distribution
would not.
I'm certainly not familiar with German law (I'm not
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 12:49:21AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
This is the harder way of doing it, of course; the easiest way is to
say that it's not the employees who own the copy of the program but the
company, and that all the work the employees do is a work for hire
and copyright is owned
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Stephen Ryan wrote:
On Wed, 2003-03-19 at 14:52, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
* If no changes have been made to the source, a URL to upstream may be
sufficient.
I don't think this is workable. First, it presumes the upstream allows
you to (ab)use it's bandwith this way.
Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
IANAL, but as far as I understood it, you are liable for everything
you distribute and all all-warenty-excluded statements are null and
void like they were not part of anything (At least for distribution
from Germans to Germans).
In the US, for
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Part of the point of free software is that everyone has a software
publishing factory on their desk, and it is the noxious copyright
regime that blocks them from using it.
My server, even if
First a general explanation of the post Henning replied to:
The bottom half of that post is an attempt to disprove by
counterexample the theory that the ASP loophole cannot be closed
without causing unbearable impracticality or failing the
dissident test. That counterexample is an overlong,
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 04:31:48PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
The claim is that:
Dissident test + Practical objections == Can't close the ASP loophole
and, furthermore that that
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 10:26:47PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Dissident test + Practical objections == Can't close the ASP
loophole
You're not making any sense.
Because it's logical equivalence, not numerical equality.
a^b * a^c = a^(b+c) is true, but a^b * a^c =
Scripsit Jakob Bohm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Here is one hypothetical text (TINLA, IANAL, IANADD):
If you offer to one or more parties the service of running the
Program in exchange for a monetary fee or other significant
consideration, and the act of running the Program is in essence
the service
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 10:34:35AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Huh? It seems meaningless to me: if you employ some people to work on
your program, you put them under NDA so that they agree not to disclose
the source code; if you work with other groups, you do likewise to them.
The license
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 12:06:12PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
If necessary, you do the NDAing at arm's length, something like:
A changes the program
E employs B under a contract that they don't distribute the
program or its source, etc
E asks A to give B a copy of
Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030317 17:31]:
Folks who are providing an ASP-style service generally are going to
have big web servers and lots of bandwidth anyway; I'm not convinced
that distribution of source would be a significant burden for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Folks who are providing an ASP-style service generally are going to
have big web servers and lots of bandwidth anyway; I'm not convinced
that distribution of source would be a significant burden for
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 07:30:44PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
If your program is not distributed to anyone, then the license cannot
require you to distribute it to anyone (no matter how many people
use it or for what purpose, etc).
Instinctively, this seems a reasonable test to
Scripsit Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm saying that in the most typical case, these folks will have big
servers big pipes. I'm certainly not saying that it's ideal that
only folks with big servers and big pipes be able to provide ASP
services.
What you seem to be saying is that you
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 10:26:47PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Dissident test + Practical objections == Can't close the ASP
loophole
You're not making any sense.
Because it's logical equivalence, not numerical equality.
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 07:30:44PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
If your program is not distributed to anyone, then the license cannot
require you to distribute it to anyone (no matter how many people
use it or for what purpose, etc).
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030317 17:31]:
Folks who are providing an ASP-style service generally are going to
have big web servers and lots of bandwidth anyway; I'm not convinced
that
The Dissident test is equivalent to saying (or, at least, implies):
You should never be forced to give your source changes (and/or rights
to use/modify them) to anyone but the users of your program.
We've established that you can't require someone who lets other people
use a program, but
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
We've established that you can't require someone who lets other people
use a program, but who doesn't distribute copies of it normally, to
give out copies of changes made to the source to any user who asks,
too, since that'd require you to keep
* Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030317 17:31]:
Folks who are providing an ASP-style service generally are going to
have big web servers and lots of bandwidth anyway; I'm not convinced
that distribution of source would be a significant burden for them.
Note the generally. You are aware that
Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Folks who are providing an ASP-style service generally are going to
have big web servers and lots of bandwidth anyway; I'm not convinced
that distribution of source would be a significant burden for them.
But the proposals for closing the loophole
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
If your program is not distributed to anyone, then the license cannot
require you to distribute it to anyone (no matter how many people
use it or for what purpose, etc).
Which is to say that, if accepted, the Dissident test and the
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 10:42:34AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
If your program is not distributed to anyone, then the license cannot
require you to distribute it to anyone (no matter how many people
use it or for what purpose,
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 10:42:34AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
If your program is not distributed to anyone, then the license cannot
require you to distribute it to anyone (no matter
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 07:30:44PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
The Dissident test is equivalent to saying (or, at least, implies):
You should never be forced to give your source changes (and/or rights
to use/modify them) to anyone but the users of your program.
We've established
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 07:30:44PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
[ASP condition]
You should never be forced to give your source changes (and/or
rights to use/modify them) to people who merely use your program
(but don't already receive copies).
Hmm, I wonder if this could be
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 02:41:49PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 10:42:34AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
If your program is not distributed to anyone, then
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 01:25:25AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
I'm thinking of a license that extends the proposed DMCA-subversion
clauses, in such a way that everyone who has access to the source also
has permission to copy it. Then, if you add something similar to
GPL's clause 6 (You may
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Or else stop fudging around the topic.
The claim is that:
Dissident test + Practical objections == Can't close the ASP loophole
and, furthermore that that equality goes both ways. That is that
the Dissident test is just another way of
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
The claim is that:
Dissident test + Practical objections == Can't close the ASP loophole
and, furthermore that that equality goes both ways. That is that
the Dissident test is just another way of saying that the only ways
you're allowed
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 04:31:48PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
The claim is that:
Dissident test + Practical objections == Can't close the ASP loophole
and, furthermore that that equality goes both ways. That is that
the Dissident
38 matches
Mail list logo
