On Sun, 2003-03-09 at 20:57, Nick Phillips wrote: > On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 04:40:25PM -0500, David Turner wrote: > > > This seems to be a serious stretch of the actual wording of (2)(d). One > > could also argue that any CD which includes GPL'd software is a > > derivative work of that software. But arguing it doesn't make it true. > > Let's talk about what the AGPL actually says, and not about how people > > might misinterpret it. The way (2)(d) works is that the original author > > writes suitable quine-like functionality, and people who modify the > > software can't remove it. There's no need by people who merely run the > > software to package anything up -- the software will be designed to do > > this by itself. > > The problem with this is that it is very likely that people will want to > use code for purposes other than those for which it was originally intended, > and this proposed license does not appear to take this into account; there > is no reason to suppose that what I create using someone's web app will be > a web app to which this clause could reasonably apply, indeed there is > every likelihood that it will go off in an entirely different direction > (which is one of the wonderful things about free software), and that this > clause would prevent it.
When you say, "every likelihood", I am not sure that I agree. In fact, it seems rare to me that code from a web app would go into a non-web app, although not impossible. Still, it seems that the clause could be reworded to take this into account. > This alone, IMHO, should be sufficient reason for this clause to die. Or be rewritten. -- -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