On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 19:40:23 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 04:12:39PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Would it be an excessive requirement to provide an offer for source
> > (at up to 10 times your cost of providing source)? The offer could
> > easily be stuck in the fine print next to the copyright notices.
>
> I've generally been of the opinion that the "provide an offer for N
> years" option in the GPLv2 is not a free option. That is, software
> that requires it and didn't offer the GPL's easier alternatives (to
> place the source alongside the binary on the FTP) would be non-free.
Agreed.
> I don't think we've ever actually seen a license do that and it's only
> come up theoretically.
>
> (Who would ever mirror Debian if every mirror had to maintain a
> snapshots.d.o? An argument could easily be made on Dissident Test
> grounds, as well. The "10 times" change makes some cases more
> reasonable for some people, but not free.)
Exactly.
>
> So I think my answer is yes; it's not reasonable to require that I
> commit myself, for years into the future, to the task of archiving,
> packaging and shipping source, and this is just a slight variation on
> that theme.
That is my opinion, too.
>
> This, by the way, isn't a flaw in the GPLv2: it's perfectly fine for a
> free license to offer non-free alternatives alongside the free ones.
> (You know that, of course.)
Obviously...
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgptMOJBSCJ4E.pgp
Description: PGP signature