Re: "Software Libre and Commercial Viability"

[http://dummy.us.eu.org/robert]

 > From: Alessandro Rubini <http://www.pop.systemy.it/~rubini>
 > Date: Thu  Feb 11, 10:38am
 >
 > 
 > Hi Robert.
 > 
 > Thanks for your feedback.
 > 
 > > I believe this to be a general problem (this was discussed on
 > > gnu.misc.discuss) of the "open source" model -- servers.  With the
 > > server model, a piece of software can remain closed indefinitely;
 > > [...]
 > 
 > Can you please expand on this? Does it mean that even if the sw is GPL
 > nobody will know about and nobody will ask for the source?

Right.  I believe that the GPL says that modifications to the source are
required to be distributed if the program (i.e., either the source or the
binary) is distributed; i.e., personal modifications are OK.

But perhaps I'm wrong -- maybe the case of someone making GNU software
only available in the form of a server would too much violate the "spirit"
of the GPL rather than its actual words.

And you may be right -- if someone knew enough to ask for the source, it
seems that they would be required to hand it over (although, it's sort of
ambiguous).

I think this is the reason that there needs to be a Server GNU Public
License, to resolve these ambiguities; or maybe just an update to the GPL.

 > Or is it that the hw manufacturer can refuse to release source code
 > because the sw is not useable without the accompanying hardware?

I hadn't thought about that case, but I suppose that's possible.

 > Thanks a lot
 > /alessandro
 > --
 > /]o_     __ o  Tutto cio` che e` intelligente appare strano allo sprovveduto
 > \__/----_`\<,                                            (Zio Paperone)
 > _oo____( )/( )__ http://www.linux.it/~alessandro.rubini  +39-0382-529554