Am 18. Jan, 2004 schw=E4tzte Chris Gehlker so:
> On Jan 18, 2004, at 3:07 PM, der.hans wrote:
> 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.
Well, they could go to some effort and help improve it. If they're expected
to give back, then it shouldn't matter if they've needed to make changes.
> > 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.
Well, the MySQL guys think that distributing MySQL ( binary and source )
along with proprietary programs that 'connect' to MySQL using network or
socket connections is a violation of the GPL because those programs are
modifying the program. The guy I talked to at LISA claims RMS has given
MySQL his blessing on this interpretation.
> 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.
Why would it be illegal? Under the RPL it would be, I think. Under the GPL,
though, that would be legal. What if he was extending his life only so that
he could watch "Soylent Green" over and over again? :)
The RPL also has problems because manufacturers usually can't limit what
customers do with products. Can TiVo sue everyone for all the TiVo mods tha=
t
happen?
I agree that it would be good for those who've modified Free Software to
release their changes. From whom are they taking freedoms, though, if they
hoard them? The point of Free Software is that the person getting the code
is given the rights described in the 4 freedoms. There are no obligations
other than to extend those freedoms to whomever the code might be given.
> Are you saying that we are more stubborn and have bigger egos than RMS?
> I was beginning to suspect that. ;-)
Oh, I think I can be very stubborn :). I do try to learn and improve,
though.
ciao,
der.hans
--=20
# https://www.LuftHans.com/ http://www.AZOTO.org/
# You can't handle the source! - der.hans
(text/plain)