On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 00:16, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 08:04, Henning Makholm wrote: > > > > Sure. Compare this to some code using the GPL; same sort of information, > > > > same problem with it: their trade secrets are woven into the > > > > functionality > > > > of the code itself. > > > > > > In that case you can simply choose to distribute the program only to > > > people you trust. You can't do this if the license carries an > > > obligation to distribute to a fixed third party, too. > > > > Interesting! I am inclined to agree with this, and point out that the > > AGPL basically puts users in the category of people you have to trust. > > The question is, who needs to be in this category? Do users? Sniffen > > (who secretely wants to write proprietary software) and Bushnell (whose > > heart is in the right place) say no. I think Towns says yes (as do I). > > Note Barak Perlmutter's newly proposed "tentacles of evil" test: > > 3. The Tentacles of Evil test. > > Imagine that the author is hired by a large evil corporation > and, now in their thrall, attempts to do the worst to the users > of the program: to make their lives miserable, to make them stop > using the program, to expose them to legal liability, to make > the program non-free, to discover their secrets, etc. The same > can happen to a corporation bought out by a larger corporation > bent on destroying free software in order to maintain its > monopoly and extend its evil empire. The license cannot allow > even the author to take away the required freedoms! >
I don't think that reads on this situation. -- -Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668 "On matters of style, swim with the current, on matters of principle, stand like a rock." -Thomas Jefferson
