Subject: Re: Must publish vs. must supply
From: "Abe Kornelis" <abe@bixoft.nl>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 20:42:40 +0100

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Chris F Clark <cfc@TheWorld.com>
To: <license-discuss@opensource.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 6:48 PM
Subject: Re: Must publish vs. must supply


> On Wednesday 12 March 2003 01:34 pm, Abe Kornelis wrote (editted
> silight by me in []:
> 
> >        I'll stress my point one last time (you're bored stiff
> > already, I don't doubt) I would offer the recipients of my software
> > three choices:
> >        1) make no modifications.
> >        2) make mods and keep them private [under what conditions?]
> >        3) make mods and publish to the public, either by 
> >             [3a.] publishing yourself 
> >           or by 
> >             [3b.] passing a copy of the modifications to me.
> 
> Obviously, item 2 must be under some restrictions, or there isn't any
> "must" in your 3.
--> I do not agree. The main restriction is that you keep your
      modifications private. The base line is: either keep them private
      *or* distribute to the public. Nothing in between. I am not
      intending to force anyone to publish modifications that were
      made only for private (in-company) use.
      The motivation behind this? I would love it if some
      large company picks up my published source, enhances it,
      etc. etc. and releases its modifications to the public.
      I would find it terrible however, if they'd adhere to the letter
      of the license by supplying source code to their clients, 
      without ever letting their modifications leak out (back)
      into the public. In the mainframe world this would be
      an entirely feasible scheme.

> Moreover, I have no qualms that it prevents Chinese dissidents (or Al
> Queda memebers or whomever) from making private derived works.
--> Don't expect them to bother too much about restrictions in
      any license text. But at least they can't legally do that.

> -Chris Clark

> One personal aside:  I have been greatly pleased that the participants
> in this debate have chosen to try to consider the merits of each point
> soberly and with a minimum of inflammatory rhetoric.  I understand
> that many of these points are volatile and could easily produce more
> heat than light  Thank you.
--> My pleasure!

Abe Kornelis.



--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3