On 02/03/14 10:56, Peter Eriksson wrote:
>> They would only have to have a directive that says "publish the code you run", regardless of if it is GPL or MIT/X11 or made
>> specifically for them by code monkeys in a commercial setting. And this "rule" would go in the same place where you would put "You
>> must use GPLv3 license" and it would work equally well to allow EU citizens to audit the code we want our Union to run.
>
> Not to be like this, but I think this is the problem right here. Why get stuck in a discussion about semantics when the bigger
> issue is to get away from propritary to something better. Even if it is a little better, it is still better and a path to follow.
The way I see it (as someone that probably can't fix 'the bigger
issue'), it would be a shame if the code did not get published because
someone figured "a solution" or "my solution" must implicitly be "the
solution".
I have zero idea on why someone could not make this stuff GPLv3, but I
can certainly imagine such cases where some other license could have
worked. If you go "GPLv3 is the only way x,y and z can happen" and what
you really wanted was code to audit (as opposed to pushing for your own
personal favourite) then any way that gets the actual running code
published would actually fly.
So I would prefer if people had a less narrow view in this particular
case and fought for the source being published, in any way that would
allow audits, and not limit the number of possible solutions to that
particular problem.
As you said, "even a little better is still better". The republishing
stuff (ie, Asian countries create an AU, grabs all published EU code,
makes local edits and don't return the code!) shouldn't be a showstopper
to have us in EU getting access to the EU code we pay for to have running.
_______________________________________________
http://www.foss-sthlm.se/
http://cool.haxx.se/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foss-sthlm
Received on 2014-02-03