Re: GPL compatible license?
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> >> > 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.
Since the GPL has the three year clause, adding a "for a minimum
of three years" in the above should fit as well, right?
I'm getting more unhappy each day...
MIME - broken solution for a broken design. -- Ralf Baechle
Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.