On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 10:26:43AM -0400, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > After decades with no apparent change in arguments or hope for resolution, > I find the whole debate elitist and entertainingly stagnant. Reminds me of > candy <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0QpPNcT-J4> advertisements > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJLDF6qZUX0>. > > As is common in religious debates, the two sides tend to come from > different mindsets and don't even get what the other is saying. I find the > two approaches complementary rather than in opposition. > > Want to do it for the improvement of society? Great. > Want to do it to improve efficiency, reduce bugs and involve a broader > talent pool? Also great. > Just do it. By and large the paths are the same. > > What has more-recently astounded me about the binary nature of the debate > is that it has ignored a third aspect that challenges the other two -- > cloud-based software. The GPL does not require you to release your modified > source if you don't redistribute your code at all. A cloud service thus can > use software under even the most "viral" licenses without worry because the > result is only actually executed on computers wholly under its control. > > While people still argue about closed MS-Word versus open LibreOffice, they > ignore Google Docs -- Is that open or closed? Can its developers > incorporate GPL software while wholly circumventing the FSF's social goals? > This paradigm needs to be addressed but IMO has been largely ignored for an > assortment of reasons.
I believe the answer is that yes they can. This appears to be why the AGPL license exists as per this: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.en.html -- Len Sorensen --- Talk Mailing List [email protected] https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
