From Artistic-2.0beta3
> > (4) You may modify your copy of the source code of this Package in any way
> > and distribute that Modified Version (either gratis or for a
> > Distribution Fee, and with or without a corresponding binary, bytecode
> > or object code version of the Modified Version) provided that You
> > clearly indicate what You made to the Package, and provided that You
> > do at least ONE of the following:
[...]
> > (c) permit and encourage anyone who receives a copy of the Modified
> > Version to make the source code of the Modified Version available
> > to others under the exact license of the Standard Version.
>
> Good
> > (6) You may distribute binary, object code, bytecode or other non-source
> > versions of a Modified Version provided that You do at least ONE of
> > the following:
> >
> > (a) include a copy of the corresponding source code for the Modified
> > Version under the terms indicated in (4).
[...]
> > (c) ensure that the Modified Version includes notification of the
> > changes made from the Standard Version, and offer the
> > machine-readable source of the Modified Version by mail order.
>
David Grove wrote:
> HUH? What happened to 4c?
Actually, under (6a), someone still has the choice to follow (4c), if they
want to release source. (6b) and (6c) are designed to cover when someone
chooses to distribute only binaries, without source.
(6b) is discussed in another thread.
As for your (6c) suggestion:
> how about
> <begin>
> (c) permit and encourage anyone who receives a copy of the Modified
> Version to make the binary of the Modified Version available
> to others under the exact license of the Standard Version.
> </end>
Your proposed (6c) here doesn't make much sense, since the Standard
Version's license likely is a license for source code, which you aren't
distributing.
> I don't think this accomplishes the protection of our language the way I
> think you are intending it to.
I intend my (6c) to cover a situation like this:
A redistributor is making lots and lots of copies of a binary
installation. Chances are, only .001% of their customers actually want
the source code anyway. Yet, it would increase their media costs greatly
to have to ship source to every customer, and they don't want to put it
online because of bandwidth or other issues.
Using (6c) would allow them to put a small note in the documentation to say:
"You can get the source of this if you want, upon request".
I did reword (6c) a bit to make it clearer:
(c) ensure that the Modified Version includes notification of the
changes made from the Standard Version, and offer the
machine-readable source of the Modified Version, under the exact
license of the Standard Version, by mail order.
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
