On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 09:33:02AM +1000, Craig Southeren wrote:
> The MPL has the same requirement as the GPL regard distribution, i.e.
> distrbution of source on the same same media fulfills the license terms.
> For electronic distrbution, the terms are met by the historical nature
> of the SVN repository. Compare this to the GPL which requires source
> code to be available on demand for three years after release.
This is not the same as the GPL. The GPL says in section 3a) that it's
sufficient for the source code to *accompany* the executable; the MPL 1.1
says in 3.2 that:
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.
which evidently means that it's not sufficient for the source to accompany
the executable in the case of electronic distribution (i.e., where no
physical media are transferred).
The problem with just saying "oh, it's ok, svn is for*ever*" is that
accidents can and do happen, and any mishap resulting in loss of source code
corresponding to binaries that Debian stopped distributing less than twelve
months after their introduction potentially results in legal liability for
Debian. Debian itself does not have any infrastructure to permit phasing
out source and binary packages at different times; nor do any of our
redistributors, who also incur liability under MPL section 3.6 if the source
code ceases to become available.
Fundamentally, I have a problem with the idea that our license to distribute
a package *now* depends on what happens in the *future*, particularly if we
allow it to depend on what *others* do in the future to preserve the
availability of source code. If Debian is to distribute MPL-licensed code,
*Debian* (which means, in effect, the ftpmasters) must assume the
responsibility of ensuring the availability of source code, instead of
relying on outside repositories (whether that's on alioth.debian.org or on
some other site that's outside the control of the ftpmasters).
> The specification of a venue only applies if one party is in the US.
Which is the case for myself, for many Debian redistributors, for
ftp-master.debian.org, and for any MPL-licensed works whose copyright holder
is in the US.
> In any case, anyone can be sued by anyone else in any venue. You could be
> just as easily sued by someone in London as in Santa Clara - why does this
> clause add a specific burden?
This is a tired old argument. Educate yourself with the debian-legal
archives if you care. Or look up the term "personal jurisdiction".
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature