Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't think it would cause a problem with the majority of people who > are using or modifying Free Software, as (I would imagine) most of > them don't have anything to hide... but to someone who does?
I thought of a scenario, which seems entirely plausible, all above board, and should give pause to any kind of forced publication requirement. No anarchists or terrorists, no repressive governments. Consider Fred the Lawyer. He has a number of clients, for whom he drafts contracts. The contracts are sensitive, and the Fred has a legal obligation to preserve confidentiality in all his dealings with his clients. They have the right to tell people what goes on between him and them, but he has no such right: he has, by contrast, an ironclad obligation *not* to disclose any material fact about his relationship with his clients. The clients do complicated business and financial deals, which depend on this secrecy. Now some of his clients need to have a bunch of similar contracts. Joe's Sheet Rock Company needs to write order contracts for materials, and because of the tight competition in the sheet rock industry, the details of the contracts he works out with his suppliers are kept tightly guarded. Similarly, Al's Brick Works and Dave's Lumber Supply. They all are in highly competitive fields, where they need to have purchase contracts with suppliers, and the details of these contracts are extremely sensitive. Now Joe's Sheet Rock Company needs to be flexible in the deals it makes with suppliers, but the contracts all fall into similar patterns. So the Fred the Lawyer thinks of a method for helping Joe's while keeping unnecessary legal expenses down. He'll write a computer program, tailored specially for Joe's Sheet Rock; Joe can then input the details of the particular arrangement, and most of the time, the program can churn out a reliable contract for Joe and his supplier. What a great system! Fred wants to use a popular free software package which almost does just the job: QNU Madlibs. But QNU Madlibs is distributed under the QPL. What the Fred would like to do is make a special version of QNU Madlibs for Joe, with the special details of Joe's contracts. And this is not mere change of data: Fred has a good programming staff, and the logic of Joe's business practices is deeply embedded in the logic of the program that the Fred's firm writes. So the Fred modifies QNU Madlibs. He gives Joe the program, along with the source, and thinks "wow, free software really is cool". But alas, he was using something under the QPL. One day the author of QNU Madlibs goes through the server logs for downloads, thinking "I wonder if anyone has any cool improvements on my program". For each download, he sends a formal request to give back their changes to the sysadmin of the systed who downloaded. Won't get perfect response, but that's OK; he's just casting a wide net. And the Fred the Lawyer has a talented technical staff. They get the request, and it lands on Fred's desk the next day. If Fred complies with the demand, he violates a duty of confidentiality. Whoops! Fred was entirely happy to play by what he thought were the rules of free software; he gave Joe's Sheet Rock the source to the program (indeed, Joe is a programmer himself, and has been working together with Fred on possible improvements: Joe is also delighted at the requirements that source be given to him). But alas, since QNU Madlibs is distributed under the QPL, Fred and Joe are out of luck. If there were no copyrights, Joe and Fred would not be stuck. But the licensor has decided to use copyright restrictions to enforce a "you must share" limitation on their freedom, which has materially hurt them. Thomas
