On 04 Apr 2006 00:04:32 -0400 Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
..deleted > [snip] > > The MPL specifies (see para 3.2) that source must be provided via an > > agreed "Electronic Distribution Mechanism", which is defined as (see > > para 1.4) "...a mechanism generally accepted in the software development > > community for the electronic transfer of data." > > > > I don't see why this excludes FTP. I would expect to also include HTTP, > > scp, rsync, or for that matter, CVS and SVN. > > The "Electronic Distribution Mechanism" clause applies if you want to > continue to provide source for six or twelve months, which is the > objection -- given package update rates, this could add up to hundreds > of megabytes of compressed files. Very true, but the alternative is that source code for an executable could disappear the moment that a new version of the executable is made available. While strictly speaking this would appear to conform to the letter of the license, I don't see it as being particularly useful. This would appear to impose a serious caveat on Open Source users, namely "get the source when you get the executable because the source may not be there there tomorrow" Which is why I originally suggested that making the source available via SVN or CVS could be considered as a performance of the "Electronic Distribution Mechanism" requirement. Thanks against for the education! Craig ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Craig Southeren Post Increment VoIP Consulting and Software [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.postincrement.com.au Phone: +61 243654666 ICQ: #86852844 Fax: +61 243673140 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mobile: +61 417231046 "It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile. Be yourself, no matter what they say." Sting
