Re: One unclear point in the Vim license
Bram Moolenaar <Bram@moolenaar.net> writes:
> > Or just tell them where to find it at the time you give them the
> > executable. If they don't avail themselves of that opportunity at that
> > time, that's their problem, at least as long as you yourself don't cause
> > that resource to become unavailable.
> That's the same for Vim: Just tell me where I can find the source code.
> The only difference I can see is that clause about restricting this to
> three years.
I'll say it once more, since you still don't get it.
Peter writes a GPLd program. The John distributes a copy of the GPLd
program to Mary, and he must give Mary the source. He does not have
to give the source to Peter. He and Mary are allowed to keep the
changes entirely secret if they want to, and this is an important
Your license, by contrast, would require John to give the source back
> It is a lot friendlier if you just tell me what the problem is...
It's been said, over and over. The problem is that any kind of
requirement that forces people to send back changes upstream is not
> To me it sounds like the GPL also breaks the rule, since it has many
> considerations for distributing the software (requiring to make the
> source code available, even when you distribute only binaries). Only
> public domain software would fully meet this rule... I suppose that's
> not how this was intended. This confuses me.
That's why we are (desperately) trying to explain how it is intended.