Barriers to an ASP loophole closure (was Re: OSD && DFSG - different purposes - constructive suggestion!)

2003-03-10 Thread Jeremy Hankins
Anthony Towns writes: > This detailed wrangling is really missing the point that I'm interested > in, though. Is there a _fundamental_ difficulty with such licenses? Is it users of programs or owners of copies of programs that should have freedom? As far as I can see the answer is clearly users

Re: Barriers to an ASP loophole closure (was Re: OSD && DFSG - different purposes - constructive suggestion!)

2003-03-10 Thread Thomas Bushnell, BSG
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Is it users of programs or owners of copies of programs that should > have freedom? As far as I can see the answer is clearly users. > Currently those two groups are roughly the same, and the second group > is *much* easier to draw a line around. So w

Re: Barriers to an ASP loophole closure (was Re: OSD && DFSG - different purposes - constructive suggestion!)

2003-03-10 Thread Nick Phillips
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 12:25:02PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: [ more good argument snipped] > Even if there were *no* legal limitations of any kind on the copying > and modification of any software, there would *still* be no way to > give that liberty to users, since (when user and posses

Re: Barriers to an ASP loophole closure (was Re: OSD && DFSG - different purposes - constructive suggestion!)

2003-03-11 Thread Anthony Towns
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:27:44PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote: > Anthony Towns writes: > > Basically, as far as I can see, the dissident test is exactly equivalent > > to saying "we don't want to close this ASP loophole thing". > I don't think this is true, if you accept the substitution of users

Re: Barriers to an ASP loophole closure (was Re: OSD && DFSG - different purposes - constructive suggestion!)

2003-03-11 Thread Steve Langasek
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 06:41:40PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 02:27:44PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote: > > Anthony Towns writes: > > > Basically, as far as I can see, the dissident test is exactly equivalent > > > to saying "we don't want to close this ASP loophole thing"

Re: Barriers to an ASP loophole closure (was Re: OSD && DFSG - different purposes - constructive suggestion!)

2003-03-11 Thread Stephen Ryan
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 11:58, Steve Langasek wrote: > I find this an acceptable compromise. The GPL already implements > something very close to this: if you give someone a copy, they're able > to pass it on to a third party who in some cases then has grounds for > demanding source from the autho

Re: Barriers to an ASP loophole closure (was Re: OSD && DFSG - different purposes - constructive suggestion!)

2003-03-11 Thread David Turner
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 14:51, Stephen Ryan wrote: > On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 11:58, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > I find this an acceptable compromise. The GPL already implements > > something very close to this: if you give someone a copy, they're able > > to pass it on to a third party who in some c