Re: OpenDesk.com License Proposal

1999-11-07 Thread Derek Balling

At 11:28 AM 11/8/99 +1100, Andrew J Bromage wrote:
> > 2) Commercial Use for Private Installations (e.g. installing OpenDesk on an
> > Intranet)
> >   a) Modifications to Covered Code must be released under this license.
> >
> > The GPL does that.
>
>No it doesn't.
>
>If you install a modified version of a GPL'd product as a server
>product on an intranet, you are not obliged to release modifications,
>since you are not actually distributing anything, neither binaries
>nor source.
>
>The situation with OpenDesk (or, indeed, any server app system) is
>different, since you don't have to distribute anything in order to let
>people use it.  The GPL doesn't help, since it only covers distribution
>of source, object code and binaries.

Then you will run into the problem of having to run a CVS repository for 
your users. Reason: If I am working on code under this license, I may make 
100 separate modifications, before I wind up with working code again. 
(e.g., make changes, find bugs, fix bugs, make more, fix more, etc., yada 
yada yada).

Each "modification" - separately - is something which must be released. If 
I change line 100 in the first edit, before I make other changes, I have to 
make THAT (albeit bug-ridden or non-functional) code available before I can 
go fix it.

2.a. would need some rewriting before anyone would conceivably work on the 
code, IMHO.

D




Re: OpenDesk.com License Proposal

1999-11-07 Thread Andrew J Bromage

G'day all.

On Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 02:17:47AM +0100, Philipp Gühring wrote:

> 2) Commercial Use for Private Installations (e.g. installing OpenDesk on an
> Intranet)
>   a) Modifications to Covered Code must be released under this license.
> 
> The GPL does that.

No it doesn't.

If you install a modified version of a GPL'd product as a server
product on an intranet, you are not obliged to release modifications,
since you are not actually distributing anything, neither binaries
nor source.

The situation with OpenDesk (or, indeed, any server app system) is
different, since you don't have to distribute anything in order to let
people use it.  The GPL doesn't help, since it only covers distribution
of source, object code and binaries.

ObGPLbait: The GPL is a great licence, but it does read like it comes
from a former era, when you could really only run a program by
executing its binary on your own machine, and everyone understood what
you meant when you used words like "compiling" and "linking".  Modern
techniques of application serving and programming language
implementation mean that it doesn't really help preserve either the
openness or freedom (take your pick) of many modern applications.

Cheers,
Andrew Bromage