| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
RMS: The GNU GPL Is Here to Stay (O'ReillyNet)RMS: The GNU GPL Is Here to Stay (O'ReillyNet)Posted Sep 25, 2005 13:11 UTC (Sun) by job (subscriber, #670)In reply to: RMS: The GNU GPL Is Here to Stay (O'ReillyNet) by dlang Parent article: RMS: The GNU GPL Is Here to Stay (O'ReillyNet)
Please respect all the people who reads your comment and has to spend some extra work to parse what you're actually saying. Using proper capitalization and punctuation would make it simpler. Keep in mind that many of us reads English as a foreign language spends enough neurons on reading the text without having to fill in the missing characters.
As to what you're saying, it is not likely that one network protocol would be favoured over others in a software license. Neither is it likely that any protocols need to be changed just because one is required to distribute source code.
(Log in to post comments)
RMS: The GNU GPL Is Here to Stay (O'ReillyNet) Posted Sep 25, 2005 23:12 UTC (Sun) by dark (subscriber, #8483) [Link] I think there is some basis for being concerned about that. The Affero GPL is a variant of the GPL which has a downloadable-source clause. The FSF was involved in drafting it, and one of the goals was to see how such a clause would work in practice. So it's a precedent to consider, and it does single out HTTP as the protocol to use.That doesn't mean the GPLv3 will automatically do the same thing, but we should at least talk about it. And we can't just ignore the protocol either. I work with services for mobile phones, where the transport protocol might be SMS -- 140 bytes per packet, costing several cents and several seconds to send a packet. Offering source code over that is not reasonable.
RMS: The GNU GPL Is Here to Stay (O'ReillyNet) Posted Sep 25, 2005 23:48 UTC (Sun) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link] if it's not going to favor one protocol over another, please explain how the 'download button' will work for an IMAP mail server, or for a DNS server.
RMS: The GNU GPL Is Here to Stay (O'ReillyNet) Posted Sep 26, 2005 5:04 UTC (Mon) by jamesh (subscriber, #1159) [Link] If you really wanted such a feature for an IMAP server, one possible way would be to provide a read-only folder that contains a single message with the source code as an attachment. If the folder isn't subscribed by default, then it wouldn't annoy users that aren't looking for the source.
RMS: The GNU GPL Is Here to Stay (O'ReillyNet) Posted Sep 26, 2005 5:18 UTC (Mon) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link] it's not a question of wanting to add it, it's a question of will GPLv3 _REQUIRE_ you to add it.
and while IMAP does have a mechanism that can be twisted into providing this (as long as the attachment isn't too large) not all protocols are as easy to manipulate, DNS being one good example.
Self-advertising protocols Posted Sep 26, 2005 17:28 UTC (Mon) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] Not to quibble, but DNS is perfectly capable of delivering a URL. Even ping can do that. So can old-standard SMTP. New protocols seem increasingly likely to have a place to paste in a URL.
As for how vague the legal definition of "public performance" must be, applied to software: if in doubt, put in the URL. If anyone you don't know downloads the code, it must have been a public performance.
RMS: The GNU GPL Is Here to Stay (O'ReillyNet) Posted Sep 27, 2005 2:39 UTC (Tue) by jamesh (subscriber, #1159) [Link] As far as I can tell, the term they are talking about would forbid you from removing such a feature, rather than requiring you to add it.
This is similar to the existing GPLv2 provision that interactive derivative works should print a copyright and warranty notice on startup, which is waived if the original version was interactive but didn't print such a message.
It's a bit hard to say any more without knowledge of the actual terms being considered.
RMS: The GNU GPL Is Here to Stay (O'ReillyNet) Posted Sep 27, 2005 3:48 UTC (Tue) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link] I wasn't aware of such a provision, could you please clarify which clause requires it?
RMS: The GNU GPL Is Here to Stay (O'ReillyNet) Posted Sep 27, 2005 6:54 UTC (Tue) by jamesh (subscriber, #1159) [Link] Section 2 (c), which deals on creating and distributing modifications to GPL covered software: c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.) So this clause has the following implications:
RMS: The GNU GPL Is Here to Stay (O'ReillyNet) Posted Sep 27, 2005 10:16 UTC (Tue) by job (subscriber, #670) [Link] How about reading the article? What is this, Slashdot?
|
|||||||||||