Re: [RFC] Modification history as a source code
NB: quotations are reordered by argument.
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 02:22:19PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
DB>> The issue of storage is more controversial, all I can give is my
DB>> personal opinion that it is fair to expect that creators keep
DB>> track of at least their own work,
AD> I don't think its reasonable to expect me to keep track of every
AD> single change I've ever made;
Did you notice that I limit this to _published_ modifications?
AD> to store that indefinitely; etc.
AD> for eternity. That, especially for large works, is a significant
I think adding the same condition as in GPL 3(b) would solve this
problem in the same way: 3 years is certainly less than "forever minus 1
AD> In order for this scheme to work, authors of works would have to
AD> keep copies of their work,
AD> (Just imagine that every time you patched XFree, you had to keep
AD> the entire XFree tree around. Ouch.)
There is difference between full copies of each version and revision
history (e.g. CVS repository). Everyone already uses version control
systems, this would just make it required by a license. Technically, GPL
creates similar requirement of using the source instead of hacking on
AD> in the same network-accessible location,
Where did I say that? Does GPL require that source is available "in the
same network-accessible location"? It just has to be available.
AD> I don't think a free license can require much more than "if you
AD> distribute this, give source under the same terms." It certainly
AD> can't require me to spend an indefinite amount of money keeping
AD> stuff around years after I'm dead.
The only difference between source as a source code and source as a
revision history is size, and I intentionally limited your
responsibility to only the modifications that you make, in order to
guarantee that both source size and amount of effort and money spent is
finite and marginal in comparison with effort and money spent on
producing the modification in question.