Re: OSD && DFSG - different purposes - constructive suggestion!
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 06:31:05PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 09:15:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > We already reject (1), (2), and (3). Why is (4) suddenly not rejected
> > as onerous?
> Because it's not onerous if someone else covers your costs. In the same
> way "You must give me your sources at cost if you give me your binaries"
> isn't onerous.
Actually, I think the GPL would have serious problems if it didn't have
3(a). Having to keep the source around for three years would be a
significant burden. What keeps the GPL free is that you have the option
to offer sources and binaries together and be done with it, even if
the recipient elects to take only the binaries.
So yes, "You must give me your sources at cost if you give me your
binaries" is onerous.