Re: MPL and Source Code
On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 23:15:05 -0400
Anthony DeRobertis <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Craig Southeren wrote:
> > Does the NMU end up in the repository eventually? If so, then I don't
> > see this as a problem.
> Merging the NMU into the repository is up to the maintainer (he is,
> after all, the one with commit access). Given Debian's persistent
> problems with MIA maintainers, it â?? unfortunately â?? does not always
> happen. Multiple NMU's often go completely unacknowledged by the maintainer.
I guess I'm confused, probably because I'm not knowledgable about Debian
Where does the source for the NMU reside? Is it just part of the source
code release, but not in the repository? If so, then I don't see any
problem - as long as the source code is available somewhere, then that's
all that is needed to conform the the license.
Whether this is good development practise is a different question :)
> > This is in violation of most Open Source licenses.
> > For example, the GPL requires source to be available on demand for up to
> > three years after distribution of the binary by electronic means.
> It's been pointed out elsewhere that this is not true. However, to
> reiterate and clarify:
> The GPL gives three *alternative* (notice the "or"s after 3a and 3b)
> ways to provide source; you may use any of the three you want. Debian
> picks 3a, which is:
> 3(a). Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
> source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1
> and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
> This is clarified by the last paragraph of Section 3:
> 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.
> And this is exactly what Debian does: We place the binary in a
> designated place (our FTP servers). We offer equivalent access to the
> source code from the same place.
And I agree with *all* of this.
My problem is not with the *means* of the delivery. Both the GPL and the
MPL allow both electronic and physical delivery of the source code.
That's not the point I am making.
My issue is that both the GPL and MPL (and other licenses too, probably)
require that the source code must remain available for some period of
As an open source user, this makes perfect sense.
If I grab an executable for a Open Source program, I want to be able to
go back and get the source for it at some later date. It's not
reasonable to force everyone to grab sources when they get an executable,
just in case the sources aren't there next week.
On the other It makes sense to have some kind of sunset clause on this
requirment, because we can't keep every version of everything forever.
Craig Southeren Post Increment ? VoIP Consulting and Software
Phone: +61 243654666 ICQ: #86852844
Fax: +61 243673140 MSN: email@example.com
Mobile: +61 417231046
"It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile.
Be yourself, no matter what they say." Sting