Re: Change in ispell's copyright -> nonfree?
On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 07:34:42PM -0500, David Coe wrote:
> Sorry, I wasn't clear. It's the first part of that paragraph
> that I'm worried about, as regards the ftp sites:
>
> * 4. Any web site or other electronic service that offers ispell for
> * download or other electronic transfer as a separate entity, in
> * either source or binary form, must also include a prominent statement
> * indicating that information about ispell can be obtained from the
> * following Web site URL:
Well, it's possible: put a .message in the directory with the URL, if it's
supported. Whether that's "prominent" or not is dependent on the FTP
client. I don't know what "as a separate entity" means; what if I
put my apt cache on anonymous FTP and it happened to only include
ispell?
Obnoxious requirement, anyway. URLs change; if, ten years from now, you
have a backlog of all release versions of ispell, you'll need to link all
of its long-gone download locations. I don't know how this impacts sites
linking to other sites' files; if I link to someone else's copy of ispell,
am I the one offering it? Does the license have any affect on me? If it
does, that would seem to be a license placing limits on linking; if not,
it makes the entire clause fairly useless.
Freshmeat doesn't even do this, exactly--the link does not quite match the
one given in the text posted. Assuming that doesn't satisfy the license, I'm
curious if this impact FM at all--they're not the ones actually hosting the
file.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: