On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 01:28:37PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote: > > However, no one is required to archive old versions of software as long > > as they contemporaenously distribute binaries with corresponding source. > > > > I.e., the scenario you describe can happen even with the GNU GPL. > > If they are not distributing the sources contemporaneously, but instead > making the written offer, does the source provided on taking up the offer > have to be for the binary they have, or can it be for the "current" version? I would say it has to be for the version corresponding to the hardcopy, just as the GPL requires. I don't think this is an economically infeasible requirement. It's part of the responsibility of distributing. Consider how major newspapers are distributed nationwide in the U.S. (and probably lots of other places). The New York Times doesn't ship copies of its paper to Indianapolis every day. That would be ruinously expensive and too slow to be useful for a daily newspaper. You'd either be out of date, pay a shitload for high-speed, high-volume courier service, or your press deadlines would be so early they'd be a joke. Instead, the newspaper's contents are digitally transmitted, printed closer to market, and delivered within the city to various outlets (maybe even residences, in some cases). I can see bookstores transitioning to this model, or something similar someday. I think there are already bookstores where you can buy a printout that is generated on demand. > In the case of documents, it is less likely that sources will be distributed > with (e.g. paper) copies of the work, so this becomes more important - there > is not only the case of the deliberate license-avoider to consider, but > that of the prof. who revs his document each term and hasn't heard of CVS. If it's the professor's document and he holds the copyright, the DFCL isn't binding on him. He's the author. He has monopoly rights on the work. He doesn't have to do anything he doesn't want to. The DFCL applies to those to whom he chooses. If it's not the professor's document -- if he got it from someplace else, or his university claims copyright on every thought that escapes his head onto the printed page, then he's already going to have to deal with bureaucracy, and may not be at liberty to license the paper under the DFCL anyway. If he does, the university will likely provide him with the technology to do version control, and/or mandate that the use it to protect "their" economic interest. In both of these cases he's a licensee just like anyone else. > Thoughts? Yup. :) -- G. Branden Robinson | A committee is a life form with six Debian GNU/Linux | or more legs and no brain. branden@debian.org | -- Robert Heinlein http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpTsQLI_A911.pgp
Description: PGP signature