On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 07:34:42PM -0500, David Coe wrote: > Sorry, I wasn't clear. It's the first part of that paragraph > that I'm worried about, as regards the ftp sites: > > * 4. Any web site or other electronic service that offers ispell for > * download or other electronic transfer as a separate entity, in > * either source or binary form, must also include a prominent statement > * indicating that information about ispell can be obtained from the > * following Web site URL:
Well, it's possible: put a .message in the directory with the URL, if it's supported. Whether that's "prominent" or not is dependent on the FTP client. I don't know what "as a separate entity" means; what if I put my apt cache on anonymous FTP and it happened to only include ispell? Obnoxious requirement, anyway. URLs change; if, ten years from now, you have a backlog of all release versions of ispell, you'll need to link all of its long-gone download locations. I don't know how this impacts sites linking to other sites' files; if I link to someone else's copy of ispell, am I the one offering it? Does the license have any affect on me? If it does, that would seem to be a license placing limits on linking; if not, it makes the entire clause fairly useless. Freshmeat doesn't even do this, exactly--the link does not quite match the one given in the text posted. Assuming that doesn't satisfy the license, I'm curious if this impact FM at all--they're not the ones actually hosting the file. -- Glenn Maynard
