Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > > Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>How about something vaguely like: > >> > >>""" > >>If you make the software or a work based on the software available for > >>direct use by another party, without actually distributing the software > >>to that party, you must either: > >> > >>a) Distribute the complete corresponding machine-readable source code > >>publically under this license, or > >>b) Make the source code available to that party, under the all the same > >>conditions you would need to meet in GPL section 3 if you were > >>distributing a binary to that party. > >>""" > > > > So if I use software under such a license in a network switch, to whom > > am I obliged to distribute source? How about a web proxy? > > My _intent_ with the phrase "direct use" was to avoid such issues. I'm > aiming only for the case where a user directly _interacts_ with the > software, so perhaps I should have said "direct interaction" instead of > "direct use".
It is difficult for me to see how you define "direct use" to include something like Apache, but not include something like libc or the kernel. It seems a bit of a stretch to require people to distribute those when they are just running a webserver. It would make it much, much, much, much harder to set up a public website. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]