Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> Ok, but it still needs to be modified. Are you suggesting that the
> freedom to produce a binary that can't be recompiled by anyone else is a
> necessary freedom?
>
>
I haven't read the license, and I suggest asking on -legal if you want a
full analysis, but the general problems of clauses like that are:
* Have to distribute source to people I never distributed binaries
too. So I can't make private modifications for a friend (and give
source only to him). Nor can I make modifications interesting only
to my organization (say, to make it run in a special environment
unique to my organization) unless I distribute source (which is
useless to anyone else, and which is probably a fair bit of
additional work to distribute, especially if I don't already have
a website to do it from.
* Because I must publicly distribute source, I can not secretly use
the software. While there is unlikely to be any problem with my
use of a compiler being known (well, at least not today), in other
cases this could be a problem: Crypto software, DMCA-circumvention
devices, etc.
* In order to keep the source publicly available for 12 months, I
may have to bear practically unlimited costs: What happens if
Slashdot links to my website? What happens if it turns out the
software may violate a patent, copyright, etc? With software e.g.,
under the GPL, I can limit my expenses/legal exposure by ceasing
distribution entirely: Take down both the binary and the source.
With this clause, I may not.
Also, although I'm less sure of the argument, "in order to use this
software, you must provide public access to it's source code" sounds
like demanding a fee to use it.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
