Re: AROS License DFSG ok?
Scripsit Florian Weimer <email@example.com>
> * Henning Makholm:
>> | 3.2. Availability of Source Code.
>> | Any Modification which You create or to which You contribute must be
>> | made available in Source Code form under the terms of this License
>> | either on the same media as an Executable version or via an accepted
>> | Electronic Distribution Mechanism to anyone to whom you made an
>> | Executable version available; and if made available via Electronic
>> | Distribution Mechanism, must remain available for at least twelve
>> | (12) months after the date it initially became available, or at
>> | least six (6) months after a subsequent version of that particular
>> | Modification has been made available to such recipients. You are
>> | responsible for ensuring that the Source Code version remains
>> | available even if the Electronic Distribution Mechanism is
>> | maintained by a third party.
> Again, this clause is part of the MPL, which is presently considered
> DFSG-free. Furthermore, it's weaker than the corresponding GPL
No, it is significantly more restrictive than the corresponding GPL
clause. The GPL allows me to put the the binary and the source code
on my website and then later remove both. The above clause requires me
to make arrangements to keep the source code for a longer period in
time than the binary, and even threatens me with legal action if fire
consumes the machine within the 12-month period or new ICANN rules
causes my domain name to be appropriated, or whatever.
This is very clearly a non-free requirement.
Henning Makholm "Det må være spændende at bo på
en kugle. Har I nogen sinde besøgt de
egne, hvor folk går rundt med hovedet nedad?"