------ art_29085_1689893.1173795675734 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On 3/13/07, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale / gmail.com> wrote: > > On 3/12/07, Chad Perrin <perrin / apotheon.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 07:31:23AM +0900, Rick DeNatale wrote: > > > On 3/11/07, Chad Perrin <perrin / apotheon.com> wrote: > > > > The more I think about this though, I'm not sure I want someone's > > > binaries without the source. The thrust of the FSF and for that > > > matter the open source movement is *open source*, not gratis > > > distribution of binary software. Having the source available with the > > > binaries also provides for at least a minimal audit trail to the > > > licensing terms of those binaries. If you just download the binaries, > > > and you can't tie them to source, how to you as a user show that you > > > have a license to the software? > > > > How do you feel about people having a (legally protected) right to > > distribute Linux LiveCDs without having to push several CDs full of > > source code on the recipients at the same time? > > That's not requred by the GPL, the requirement is that if you > distribute such a live CD, you need to make the source used to create > it available. You don't need to deliver it concurrently. > > > There's a difference between downloading software with the source > > available, then later finding that the source for that exact version of > > the binary went away, and downloading software when no source is > > available. I don't believe that conflating the two situations helps > > clear up the legal ramifications of the situation at all. > > So stop conflating them, the GPL doesn't. > > > > The real selling proposition of open-source is that it provides better > > > protection to the person or organization using the software that it > > > will continue to be available and maintainable. If only the binaries > > > are available, due either to neglect by or the future absense of the > > > distributor, this advantage is lost. Witness the recent suggestions > > > for a 'living will' for the owner of an open source project, it's > > > motivated by the same idea which is to keep the project alive past the > > > disinterest or the demise of the originators. > > > > In practice, the source of BSD-licensed software is as easily available > > as the source of GPLed software, generally speaking. If the source > > disappears, however, you now can't do anything with the binary at all, > > except continue to use it -- and, at that point, you have to ensure you > > don't accidentally "distribute" it sans source. That's my point. > > The strength of the GPL here is that it requires mechanisms to ensure > that the source continues to remain available. > > > > >Of course, I find both annoyingly limited in applicability to a > single > > > >form of copyrightable work, and the BSD license's applicability to > > > >derivative works is ambiguous. I still prefer the BSD license over > the > > > >GPL, especially considering recent examples of the FSF threatening > legal > > > >action against small community Linux distributions for debatable > > > >violations of GPL terms. > > > > > > Or one could view it as a wake-up call that keeping open-source open > > > requires distributing open source. > > > > A social revolution loses some ethical purity when enforced at the point > > of a gun -- and that's what the law is: a gun to one's head. > > Another way of looking at it is that the law is a tool for protecting > the interests of people in society. The GPL is carefully crafted with > knowledge of global intellectual property law, so as to protect the > right to distribute software with the assurance that others will have > the right to run, modify, and redistribute it in a way such that those > rights will be preserved. > > And we've probably argued this to the point where most who hang out > here are no longer interested, if they ever were. ;-) That might be so, but they have the delete button, while I think that those who have the time and energy to follow it get rewarded with your POV (and the other POVs too don't hit me Chad ;). Robert -- > Rick DeNatale > > My blog on Ruby > http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/ > > -- You see things; and you say Why? But I dream things that never were; and I say Why not? -- George Bernard Shaw ------ art_29085_1689893.1173795675734--