Re: Why is firebird in Debian?
"Anthony Towns" <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote in message
[🔎] 20070721031215.GB17078@azure.humbug.org.au">news:[🔎] 20070721031215.GB17078@azure.humbug.org.au...
1) The MPL requires you to make the source code to your modifications
available for six-to-twelve months electronically _or_ to make it
available on the same media as the executable version. We do the latter.
In this case the licence is the IPL. Lets take a close look at the
eact terms that are relevent.
#1.4. ''Electronic Distribution Mechanism'' means a mechanism generally
#accepted in the software development community for the electronic
#transfer of data.
#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.
#You may distribute Covered Code in Executable form only if the requirements
#of Section 3.1-3.5 have been met for that Covered Code, and if You include
a
#notice stating that the Source Code version of the Covered Code is
available
#under the terms of this License, including a description of how and where
You
#have fulfilled the obligations of Section 3.2. The notice must be
conspicuously
#included in any notice in an Executable version, related documentation or
#collateral in which You describe recipients' rights relating to the Covered
Code.
If distibuting both binary and executable from the same server is considered
"on the same media"
then there is no problem, except perhaps the notice requirement.
If they are not considered to be on the same media, (as one could consider
that electronic distribution is media-less distribution, then we are
depending on snapshot. That is actually fine, as long as ftp-masters are
willing to take on the burden of providing access to the source should
snapshot fail.
The problem with the wording of the MPL/IPL there is that it seems to assume
that binaries will be shipped on physical CDs (or similar).
As such the distributer can either include the source, or make sure the
recipients can retrive it from the web (or similar) for at least 1 year
after the distibution (or for at least 6 months after they offer to send the
recipents a newer version [obviously the requirements start all over for the
new version] ).
The licence seems to completely ignore the possibility executables
distributed electronicly. I'm guessing based on the same media thing that
the drafters wanted basically the main GPL distribution option and a
modified version of the written offer option, where instead of a written
offer, it is electronic availabity of code. However, the drafters did not
make this clear.
(I'm guessing the drafters were lawyers who normally wrote licences relating
to software on disc, and completely overlooked the possibility of
distributing the executables over the Internet.)
Reply to: