Subject: Re: GPL

From: Frank "Crash" Edwards <[email-masked]>

[Please note that I've added the mailinglist to the Cc: line.]

Richard Stallman sayeth:
>    I would probably change the wording of the GPL to state that the
>    source must be available during the same time frame that the binary
>    is.
>
>If by "available" you mean ftp, this is *already* the case in 
>the current GPL.  Please reread those paragraphs carefully and
>check what situations they apply to.

Oops; out of context.  In the preceding paragraph I stated that I
thought the "3 year" clause was a little too long-term.  I was going
to simply the matter by using a different approach:  if you
*currently* have the binary, you must also have the source.  That
allows sites that come under a space constraint to delete the binary.
If space is still a problem, delete the source.  But they aren't
legally bound to make the source available for another 3 years.  (Heck,
I know businesses that don't keep backups that long.)  I should have
said, "the source must be available *only* during the same time frame
that the binary is."  My apologies for any confusion.

I certainly agree with the intent of the GPL (which is why my
filesystem implementation is covered by it) but by the same token I
don't wish to make the distribution of the package such a burden that
site administrators will be afraid to carry it!  What good is the GPL
if individual sites are afraid of the legalities to the point where my
code never makes there in the first place?!
-- 
Frank "Crash" Edwards    Edwards & Edwards Consulting
Voice:    813/786-3675   Unix/AIX & OS/2: Training, Programming, and SysAdmin
Data/Fax: 813/787-3675   [email-masked]; inquiries to [email-masked]