On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:58:39AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Of course, XXX = "you must distribute source, too" is also a restriction. > >Again, guidelines. (If the complaint is that these guidelines can't be > >used without interaction with Debian and having the same result, then it's > >just a complaint that they're guidelines--this can't be "fixed" without > >turning it into something other than guidelines.) > > I would argue against any assertion that there's strong consensus that > "distribute to upstream authors" is a "worse" restriction than > "distribute source too".
I'll certainly throw my hat in in favour of "to upstream" being worse than "source if binaries". Firstly, there's an "advancing freedom" argument -- ensuring recipients have source code (if they want it) has a great practical advantage to freedom. I hope you agree with that (if not, we have more fundamental disagreements than this small matter). Next, there's the issue of cost -- presumably it is of trivial cost (or even profitable) to me to distribute to my recipient, because otherwise I wouldn't be doing it. It's unlikely that distributing source alongside the binaries will significantly increase that cost -- and the GPL (the most common example of this form of distribution) specifically allows the recouping of distribution costs for source. However, it may not be a trivial cost to distribute changes back to the original author -- in cases previously hypothesised, it may even be illegal. It is also unlikely to be trivial to determine what cost I may incur in sending the changes back upstream at the time I decide to exercise my granted permissions. Although it's not terminal to the point at hand, these "must send back to the author" clauses have tended to be poorly written, having no time limit or other effective means of limiting my exposure, so it is even harder for me to determine any cost I may incur as a result of complying with my obligations under the licence. Finally, there is the matter of choice. I can choose who I distribute my modified version to, and hence who receives the source. I cannot choose to send my modifications upstream -- I am compelled to if I wish to exercise my granted permissions. You may argue that I can avoid sending changes upstream by not making changes, but that's a bollocks argument -- if I cannot exercise the rights guaranteed to be available by the DFSG for a free licence, then that licence is not free. - Matt
