On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 18:49, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 17:27, David Turner wrote: > > On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 17:28, John Goerzen wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 04:33:12PM -0500, David Turner wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 14:03, Mark Rafn wrote: > > > > > I'd far rather live with the loophole and accept that some people will > > > > > make money by running a program with unpublished changes. > > > > > > > > Of course, the issue is not money. The idea is that users of a program > > > > ought to be able to get the source code for that program. Users these > > > > days often use a program without ever having recieved a copy of it. > > > > > > People that telnetted in to central servers, I think, fell into this > > > category even then. > > > > True, but they also typically had access to copy binaries (and > > therefore, get source code). > > If I'm not mistaken, the "official" FSF position on this issue is that > that is not distribution. From > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html regarding the LPPL: > > "The LPPL makes the controversial claim that simply having files on a > machine where a few other people could log in and access them in itself > constitutes distribution. We believe courts would not uphold this claim, > but it is not good for people to start making the claim."
I wouldn't say it's distribution, but copying. -- -Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668 "On matters of style, swim with the current, on matters of principle, stand like a rock." -Thomas Jefferson