Re: GPL compatible license?

[Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu>]

Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.org> writes:

> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.org> 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
   provide it.

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

-- 
Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu