[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Is NPL DFSG complient or not?



Richard Braakman <dark@xs4all.nl> writes:
> 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".

Not at all.  Read my interpretation again.  I propose that the clause
"and if made available via Electronic Distribution Mechanism" really
means "and if you are *not* shipping the source and the executable
together, but rather opting to using some other Electronic
Distribution Mechanism (i.e., CVS) to distribute the source, ...",

> 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.

You are right that the logic is ambiguous and could be read either
way.  I.e., 

  if ! p, then q
  if   q, then r

But, as you know, it's a logical falicy to think "if !p, then q" also
means "if p, then !q".  As such the license seems silent on the case
of "p && q".

I think the laywers fell for the logical fallicy.  I guess we should
point that out to them.

> 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.

Yes, that list seems dead.

I'm CC'ing <mozilla-license@mozilla.org>.  I've also included my
previous email for context.

Hopefully we can get a statement of Intent from the framers of the
license.  Maybe the license needs version 1.0.1?
-- 
.....A. P. Harris...apharris@onShore.com...<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>


Return-Path: root@burrito.onshore.com
Received: from root by burrito.fake with local (Exim 1.92 #1 (Debian))
	id 0z8zer-0001vs-00; Wed, 19 Aug 1998 00:15:37 -0400
Received: from murphy.debian.org (murphy.novare.net [205.229.104.6]) by onshore.com (8.8.8/onShore) with SMTP id XAA30676 for <apharris@onshore.com>; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 23:10:32 -0500
Received: (qmail 4364 invoked by uid 38); 19 Aug 1998 04:10:48 -0000
Resent-Date: 19 Aug 1998 04:10:48 -0000
Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ;
X-Envelope-Sender: apharris@burrito.onshore.com
To: Philip Hands <phil@hands.com>
Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Is NPL DFSG complient or not?
References: <9981.903398815@hands.com>
From: apharris@burrito.onshore.com (Adam P. Harris)
Date: 19 Aug 1998 00:10:36 -0400
In-Reply-To: Philip Hands's message of "Tue, 18 Aug 1998 01:06:55 +0100"
Message-ID: <oan2916283.fsf@burrito.fake>
Lines: 41
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/XEmacs 20.4 - "Emerald"
Resent-Message-ID: <"Tca8u.A.7DB.IBl21"@murphy>
Resent-From: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
X-Mailing-List: <debian-devel@lists.debian.org> archive/latest/12589
X-Loop: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Precedence: list
X-UIDL: 960b555147f215c6b12d036236d1a451
Resent-Sender: root <root@burrito.onshore.com>

Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> writes:
> I'm not convinced that the [NM]PL requires that the source be made available 
> any longer than the binaries, if they are provided on the same medium, at the 
> same time (i.e.  FTP, or HTTP).

Actually, rereading this, I think you are right!
> I interpret the second occurrence of the phrase 
> 
>   Electronic Distribution Mechanism
> 
> as a reference back to the first, so that the part or the sentence prior to 
> the semi-colon is saying ``you can distribute the binaries either a) with,
> or b) without the source'', and the bit after the semi-colon is saying ``If 
> you choose option b) then its up to you to let people get the source up to
> 12 (or 6) months later''.

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:

|                        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.

-- 
.....A. P. Harris...apharris@onShore.com...<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org




Reply to: