On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 11:57:05AM -0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > What do you people in debian-legal think about people who distribute > ISO images on their websites but no ISO with sources nor a written > promise? Should we consider there is an implicit offer and just ask > for the sources? > > -- > Thadeu Cascardo >
I will reply my own message in response to Olive and Joey Hess. That's also my non-lawyer's opinion. What I will say is some reasoning about requiring the same terms for copying binaries and source. Not following them by the word may be mere toleration by the copyright holder or because the distributor makes sure source distribution occurs when it is requested. But why? Why should the offer for copying the source be made in the same terms as the copying of the binaries? Because a distributor may make it difficult for someone to get the sources. It may put the sources on a machine with low bandwidth, which would take a thousand times the time to download the binary. Or else it may put the source behind a proprietary protocol, which would require the installation of some software under some unreasonable license (imagine one which only allows its use if you do not develop software for the same purposes). The following situation is a good example: The author of a popular software decides to stop distribution of binaries, since it is GPL-licensed and contains other people's contributions. He decides using some SCM software which uses a non-documented proprietary protocol and does not allow its redistribution and would require you to pay a $1000 fee. The author also stops making releases of tarballs, saying the SCM is a wonderful piece of software and does not require releases any more. And that any one can buy the SCM software and get the sources. He is allowed to do all of that. Some redistributor gets the source, makes no modification to it and puts a compiled version so everybody can download it without paying for the download itself or the SCM software so he can get the sources and build it itself. Now, you get the binaries from this distributor, asks him for the sources and he tells you it is freely available on the net by the author's SCM repository. Is this reasonable? Then imagine the author and the distributor are the same person (and perhaps, not the original author, but someone who makes modifications to the software.) That's why you should offer an *equivalent* access to the sources in the *same* place. Any disagreements and comments are welcome. Remember I have the opinion that it is reasonable if you put the sources under a different place but with equivalent access (similar bandwidth and availability and such) or under some different protocols or formats as long as they are pretty standard and there are plenty of popular and free software available to get them. However, it's better to play safe and do not count with an author and a judge that do not agree with this. Thadeu Cascardo. --
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
