On Thu, 2004-07-15 at 15:23, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Matthew Garrett wrote: > >> You could look at it that way. On the other hand, if I release my > >> GPLed code under 3(b) then anyone who receives it can pass on the offer > >> I gave them (under 3(c)). I am then obliged to pass on my modifications > >> directly to people who I never provided binaries to. Is distribution > >> under 3(b) and 3(c) non-free? > > > >If those were the only options, it was the loose consensus that that would > >not be free. > > Really? Wow. That's insane.
Whoa! Just exactly how is that insane? Under 3(b), You promise to be a non-profit global distributor (and philanthropist archiver!) for a minimum of three years. You may only use 3(c) for small scale, unmodified distribution, as there is no offer to pass on for a modified version -- the source code must be for the version of the binary that you distribute. Under 3(b), if you ever distribute something, you must hang on to the source code for it for a minimum of three years. I understand that this isn't a problem for Debian, seeing as how there's only a stable release every 3 years anyway, but it sure is a problem for a small-scale distributor or lone programmer. Under 3(b), you promise to distribute copies of that source code at the cost of distribution for those three years -- your cost of securely storing that source code is irrelevant, and you must eat that cost. Under 3(b), you must undertake to obtain export licenses, if necessary; just because the person requesting the code obtained their binary from a third party who has the appropriate export license doesn't mean that you necessarily do, and there is nothing in the GPL exempting you from having to obtain it. This may be a hassle[0]. Under 3(b), your specific life circumstances are irrelevant; the fact that your life may have turned upside-down in the past three years (I know mine has!) has no bearing on the fact that you still have a legally-binding offer out to the entire world, valid for at least those three years. I'm probably missing a whole bunch of inconveniences incurred by distributing under 3(b), too. 3(b) is a PITA. 3(c) is only an option for noncommercial distribution, and even then, only if no changes have been made. I'm sorry, but anyone who would submit to all the inconvenience of 3(b) just for the privilege of offering a patch to the community is the one who is insane. Freedom that only the insane may take advantage of is not freedom, IMO. 3(a) is salvation, because it allows me to give the source at the same time as the binary and to have no further obligations to anyone -- and this is precisely where Free Software has thrived; if every programmer was also required to be a non-profit distributor, I don't think there would be any code to be having pointless arguments like this about. [0] Understatement of the minute, at least. -- Stephen Ryan Digital Rights Management is bad for all of us: http://www.bricklin.com/robfuture.htm
