On Jan 18, 2004, at 3:07 PM, der.hans wrote:
>
> Those administrators were using it internally. I think they should 
> have been
> able to do so. They might well have made mods they can't release due to
> privacy issues.

That wasn't the case but you make a good  point.
>
> How is the H&R Block example different
> from them just using the software 'as is'?  What if a company uses a
> GNU/Linux box as a fileserver taking advantage of the kernel and the 
> OS and
> all the work that has gone into them, but doesn't give anything back?

If they are just using it 'as is' then what they could provide to the 
community is no more than what I have already provided.
>
> Also, what changes have to be given back? Do the configuration changes 
> have
> to be given back? Do the changes to a db such as the records stored 
> have to
> be given back? Requiring entities to give back all changes seems 
> problematic
> to me.

Nope. I don't know of any license that requires anything but source 
code to be given back.

> Amount of benefit is irrelevant. Should someone whose pacemaker is 
> running
> GNU/Linux have to pay millions of dollars because his continued life 
> is of
> great value? Should he have to dedicate the rest of his life to Free
> Software because it's Free Software that enables him to stay alive? 
> What
> about the doctors that take care of him? What about the company that 
> makes
> the pacemaker?
>
> No, I do not know of any GNU/Linux-based pacemakers, it's just an 
> example
> used for illustration of my point :).

Well, it's an extreme example but it makes a point. If I come up with 
pace-maker software that extends someone's life for a couple of years 
and during that time one of the beneficiaries develops a modification 
that extends people's lives another couple of years he certainly does 
have an obligation to release that modification. He simply can't say 
"No I think the world is too crowded so I'm going to keep this 
modification to myself." That would be unethical and also illegal in 
most (maybe all) countries.
>
>> I note that even the FSF now admits that the example of a web server
>> getting millions of hits that is based on modified GPL code taken
>> private gives them a problem. I hadn't seen that page before and I am
>> very encouraged.
>
> I have talked to rms about this. He was upset about people hiding 
> behind
> 'server-side is not distribution'. Thus far I tend to agree with that 
> point
> of view, though.

Are you saying that we are more stubborn and have bigger egos than RMS? 
I was beginning to suspect that. ;-)