Re: Is NPL DFSG complient or not?
Adam P. Harris wrote:
> Yes, the whole section is:
>
> | 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,
>
> That is to say, *if* source and executable are not distributed
> together on the "medium", i.e., ftp site (yes that is a medium in the
> legal sense), then you have to provide these alternative methods below:
That is only one of the possible interpretations, and it requires you
to claim that distribution from an ftp site is _not_ an "Electronic
Distribution Mechanism".
The first sentence makes a distinction between "on the same media..."
and "via an accepted Electronic Distribution Mechanism", without
giving any hint about what should be done with cases that satisfy
both. I see no reason to read the "and if" one way or the other.
The license is ambiguous on this point.
Can someone with more status than I contact Netscape and try to
get this clarified? I tried asking on the mozilla-license list
and got no response.
> | 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.
Note that this part uses a programmer's "or", which makes me reluctant
to assume a non-programmer's "and" in the first part.
Richard Braakman
Reply to: