Re: GPL compatible license?
Martin Schulze <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Martin Schulze <email@example.com> writes:
>> > Not sure if this is possible but would it be fine when modified to read:
>> > 3. Furthermore, if you distribute Elm software or parts of Elm, with
>> > or without additions developed by you or others, then you must
>> > make available the source to all portions of the new system
>> > upon request.
>> I don't think so -- it requires me to keep around a copy of the entire
>> source for any system I distribute *forever*.
> Uh? Where do you read that?
> Isn't "all portions of the new system" the same as "the entire sourcecode
> of your fork or what you distribute in binary form"?
Yes. And I have to keep it around forever, in case anybody at all
asks for a copy. This means that
a) I can't make some changes, give them to you and a few others, but
refuse, in concert with the few who have copies, to give them to
Microsoft. Microsoft can demand a copy of any of us, and we must
b) I can't ever clear away that source in favor of a new version, or
fail to keep backups of it -- and cheap to access backups too,
because anybody can compel me to provide a copy forever.
Either of these is non-free. The GPL's alternative -- provide a copy
of the source with any copy of the binary -- nicely evades both of
these non-free alternatives.
Brian Sniffen firstname.lastname@example.org