Re: Is the Nokia Open Source License DFSG compliant?

[Richard Braakman <dark@xs4all.nl>]

On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 10:09:00AM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
> > 3.2 Availability of Source Code. 
> > Any Modification which You create or to which You contribute must be
> > made available in Source Code form under the terms of this License
> > either on the same media as an Executable version or via an accepted
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
> > Electronic Distribution Mechanism to anyone to whom you made an
> > Executable version available; and if made available via Electronic
> > Distribution Mechanism, must remain available for at least twelve
> > (12) months after the date it initially became available, or at
> > least six (6) months after a subsequent version of that particular
> > Modification has been made available to such recipients. You are
> > responsible for ensuring that the Source Code version remains
> > available even if the Electronic Distribution Mechanism is
> > maintained by a third party.
> 
> So if Debian puts the source and binaries up on its ftp site, it is
> required to keep the source there for at least 12 months, and at least
> 6 months after a particular version.  We can speculate about whether
> this is DFSG-free or not, but it certainly can't be distributed by
> Debian.  Debian does not keep around the source to all of the old
> versions for at least six months.

This problem is in the MPL too.  So far we've been assuming that
"on the same media" also covers FTP sites that host both source
and binaries, and that this clause only kicks in if you distribute
binary-only versions offline.

One thing I haven't thought of before is that, apparently, you
*must* supply an Executable version.  If you supply only the
source then you must keep it available for 6-12 months.  That's
probably a bug in the wording.

Hmm, it also seems that you _must_ publish source code even if
you only intend to use a modification privately.

None of this might matter because as far as I can tell, 2.1(a)
grants enough permissions to render the rest of the license
meaningless.

I don't think the MPL was ever properly reviewed here :(

Richard Braakman