On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 06:44, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > * David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030311 00:46]: > > Because the four freedoms do talk about freedom to use the software, but > > don't say anthing about the freedom to *not* disclose source code under > > certain conditions. > > I may not talk about freedom, but it talks about: > * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs. > > Having to distribute one's modifications heavily limits this freedom.
I see a problem with having to distribute modifications in the general case, but not in the only-to-users case. > Having to distribute (or offer) the source code together with the > binaries one distributes is not only a much more minor requirement > (as it just increases the things to distribute, not forces an act of > its own), but also aims to keeping the freedom of the receivers of > the binary. Actually, the intent of AGPL's (2)(d) (if not its actual implementation, which is a minor point) is that people running the program in an ordinary fashion don't need to do anything -- they're already providing some software which uses a browser as its interface, and now the software happens to provide source code. > Even http://www.fsf.org/philosophiy/free-sw.html, where the four > freedoms are written, talks about: > #You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them > #privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they > #exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to > #notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way. > # > #The freedom to use a program means the freedom for any kind > #of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer > #system, for any kind of overall job, and without being required to > #communicate subsequently with the developer or any other specific entity. > > The current discussion tends a bit to much to discuss, if a clause > forcing the users of the program to give the people interacting with > its output access to it, can be beneficial to free software in general. > > Even if such a clause would be benefical (though I really doubt it, > as it has huge practical impacts, as many on this list noted), > this would still be no justification to remove such elementary freedom. I think the above can and should be read to allow the AGPL. Providing a web service to the public goes beyond using modifications "privately." -- -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
