Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry wrote:
> > Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>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.
>
> That's exactly why I corrected it to "direct interaction". Although it
> would be useful to require distribution of a modified libc as well,
> since it would be linked into Apache under this license.
I don't understand the difference between those terms. In any case, I
still don't see how you can word it without requiring one of two
things:
1) Someone can write a thin wrapper that you "directly interact"
with. The wrapper merely forwards requests.
2) You require everyone whose machine responds to "ping" to
distribute large parts of the operating system.
> > 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.
>
> Consider that 99.9% of sites don't have a locally modified Apache, and
> could just say "unmodified, get it from apache.org" (or their
> distribution's Apache package, if they got it from a distribution).
99.9% of sites use a _modified_ Apache, which they got from their
distributors. If they are running something like Debian's testing,
you may not be able to get it from the distributor anymore.
Regards,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
