On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 16:38:35 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote:
> If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
> access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
> access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
> distribution of the source code, even though third parties are
> not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.[1]
>
> The above clause requires "equivalent access", not the "same medium".
> Rsync is an open protocol that has clients that are freely available;
> thus, assuming the rsyncd is publicly available, it satisfies this
> clause.[2]
The protocol is quite good and I like it, but... not anyone has an rsync
client installed.
After all, rsync is not as popular as HTTP... Almost every modern and
less modern platform allows you to surf the web: do you claim that rsync
is as pervasive as HTTP?
I don't think rsync qualifies as "equivalent" to HTTP...
> The physical machine upon which the actual rsync daemon
> resides doesn't matter, so long as there is a link from the wiki to
> it. [Note that the clause above says "offering equivalent access from
> the same place" not that the place from which the source code must be
> obtained need be the same.]
Now I'm puzzled: how do you read "offering equivalent access from the
same place"?
I would say the source code must be accessible from the same place...
[...]
> 2: Even if you disagree, you can always still click on the "Edit"
> button and get the source...
That's true, absolutely true.
But impractical, really impractical (again think about someone willing
to fork a ten-thousand-page wiki site...). That would be complying with the
letter of the GPL (maybe), but not to the spirit, I would say.
IMHO.
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgptuFdBEo6u_.pgp
Description: PGP signature