Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 05:39:07PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
>
> The notable practical problems I'm alluding to would include:
>
> - All Debian mirrors must retain source packages one year after the
> corresponding binary packages are deleted
The license does not require this because on all our mirrors the
transparent copy is always along with the opaque copy.
> - Debian CD vendors must either ship source CDs to all customers
> regardless of whether a customer wants them, or maintain their own
> download mirrors.
Do you know how many Debian CD vendors ship the binary CDs together
with written offer valid for at least three years, to give any _third
party_, for a charge _no more_ than your cost of physically performing
source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the
corresponding source code.
For the CD vendors the requirement of GPL can be even more impractical
than the requirement of GFDL and as a result they always ship the
source CDs.
> - Neither Debian, nor the mirror network, nor the users, can use
> rsync-over-ssh to update their CD images or individual packages.
You can use any way to update the CD images or individual packages
because by doing so you are not controlling the reading and furthure
copying. Everybody who receives the data is free to read and copy
it.
If I do not give you access to read some file then I am controlling
you, not your reading - there exists no reading I can control. I
would be controlling your reading if the copy I gave to you was
protected in such a way that you could read it today but not tomorow.
Anton Zinoviev
Reply to: