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

Re: A single unified license




On Saturday, Jun 14, 2003, at 07:03 US/Eastern, Richard Braakman

That's a lot easier than "Here's a Debian CD.  And here's my solemn
promise to provide source CDs for this Debian version to anyone who
asks for the next three years. Please wait while I go buy a CD burner."
(Note that 2(c) is not an option here because Debian doesn't use 2(b).)

Well, the CD burner thing doesn't really apply; either I got that Debian CD by burning it, from a friend, or buying it. In the first case, I already have the CD burner. In the second case and third case, I should have source disks or a 2(b) offer. In the third case (and maybe the second case), the first sale doctrine applies as well, so I don't have to worry about the GPL.

However, I see your point here. For me giving a Debian CD to my friend, I shouldn't have to either worry about doubling the number of CDs (and download time) or 2(b). I agree that 2(c) needs to be improved in light of the seldom use of 2(b).

May I suggest:

    d) Accompany it with information you reasonably expect to remain
    accurate for at least one year as to how to obtain, for a charge
    no more than the cost of physically performing source distribution,
    corresponding source. (This alternative is allowed only for
    noncommercial distribution in quantities of under 120 per year)

The wording needs some help, of course. But the major changes:

	1) You must reasonably expect the information to remain
	   accurate for one (or should this be 3?) years. In the
	   case of Debian, you'd use ftp.d.o or archive.d.o.
	2) You may only do it 120 times or less per year. This
	   number seems high to me... Maybe it should be less. I
	   sure don't give out 10 Debian CDs a month.

One problem I still see with the wording is that the information I could give could be:
	"Visit <http://www.google.com/>, search for foomajig 0.13.2."

I think 2(d) reflects what people already do in practice.  It may even
dispel some of the misinformation and misunderstanding surrounding the
GPL, by making it clear that this alternative is NOT allowed for
commercial distribution.

Hopefully, at least one of the works distributed by someone doing commercial distribution without even reading the license will be registered with the Copyright Office. That way, they can learn about statutory damages under Title 17. I'd hope people doing commercial distribution would be a little more cautious; and, of course, if they're not reading the license, then adding in this clause isn't going to help.



Reply to: