On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 08:46:33AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: > > > 3. Furthermore, if you distribute Elm software or parts of Elm, with > > > or without additions developed by you or others, then you must > > > either make available the source to all portions of the Elm system > > > (exclusive of any additions made by you or by others) upon request, > > > or instead you may notify anyone requesting source that it is > > > freely available from the Elm Development Group. > > > > The requirement to distribute the entire original source, rather than > > just source for the part one is actually using, seems > > GPL-incompatible. I am not sure whether it is DFSG-free or not; it > > might be saved by the patch exception. > > Even with this addition: > > > or instead you may notify anyone requesting source that it is > > > freely available from the Elm Development Group. > > Doesn't it say that it is sufficient to inform the users that they > can fetch the entire source code of Elm from the Elm Development Group? > Additionally, aren't the users informed about this properly by distributing > this license, e.g. in /usr/share/doc/*/copyright? Still doesn't appear GPL-compatible (although this clause is probably free). > > The alternative option to notice "anyone requesting source" seems to > > be impractical - would I be required to send such a notice along with > > the answer to every HTTP request for my forked source tarball? > > Since this is impractical, I doubt so. It is common for licenses to demand impractical things. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature