From: James Britt <james_b@...>
Date: 2005-09-13T12:10:08+09:00
Subject: Re: Choosing an open source license

debbie@theanimaro.com wrote:
...

> 
> Regarding point (1), they can create a competing branch, but if they're
> going to run game servers based on my code that compete with mine and
> they make improvements to their game servers, I'd want them to release
> their improvements to the public. And regarding point (2), they don't
> need my permission to make changes, they just need to distribute those
> changes.
> 
> Remember, I'm not talking about typical desktop software here; I'm
> talking about server software. I don't want people using my code base
> to
> create competing game servers that are closed-source; that's all...
> 
> 

I believe this issue has come up with regards to companies such as 
Google, who take OSS, and alter it for their needs, and effectively 
distribute the behavior of their application through a browser, while 
not actually distributing the application itself as a binary, skirting 
the requirements to release the source code.

The increased prevalence of Web-based applications has led some to 
wonder if a new definition of "distribute" is needed.

It may be more reasonable to to require that people must make their 
source code available on demand if the services provided by  that 
software is available to the public.   So, if AmEx, for example, makes 
mods to some server code, but only uses the software in-house, they're 
under no obligation to release the code.  But if they use it to power a 
public Web site or Internet service, then they are effectively (so one 
argument goes) "distributing" the application and must offer source on 
demand.



James


-- 

http://www.ruby-doc.org - The Ruby Documentation Site
http://www.rubyxml.com  - News, Articles, and Listings for Ruby & XML
http://www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://www.jamesbritt.com  - Playing with Better Toys