On 27 November 2010 14:06, Ruslan Zasukhin <ruslan_zasuk...@valentina-db.com > wrote:
> > joke about "100 years delay" in fact is true ? :-) > If this is true, then yes, this is big challenge personally for me. > > Then I think all closed-source software can claim that we all are GPL, and > ready to open our sources, e.g. 100-1000 years later. > > I.e. Oracle and MS SQL can claim they are open source? :-) > Just 1000 years later ? Wait please ... > I really think this is a red herring Ruslan. I'm pretty sure that the way this clause is drafted in the GPL has been given a LOT of thought. I know this form being involved in the early drafting of the UK Creative commons licenses, and observing the level of rather painful detail that the volunteer legal buffs spent haggling over each and every word. It also strikes me as fairly standard and reasonable legal practice - even though this may not sit well with a purely logical mind :) As far as I can tell, the purpose and effect of this clause is to make it as flexible as possible for the copyright holder to comply with the terms without mandating any specific form of distribution. That is reasonable, the requirement is that: > You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. > > In a court case a judge will rule accordingly and is fully able to decide whether or not the defendant has made reasonable attempts to comply with the requirements of the license. For instance in 2008, FSF took Cysco systems to court more or less on this basis, as Cisco had spend 6 years (despite repeated protests from the FSF), effectively stalling to make copies of Lynksys Router software readily available. Cisco settled out of court in 2009 <http://www.fsf.org/news/2009-05-cisco-settlement.html>. Many projects start out by claiming to be open source but months or even years to make their code easily accessible, but this is largely due to their internal fears over the quality of the code, and wish to "properly support" the open source initiative with documentation etc. If you email them they will almost always (perhaps grudgingly) send you a copy. It is generally regarded as both bad business practice, especially in marketing terms, to not release the code fully and early. Virtually all open source projects that have managed to successfully build a community around their project have taken that route, those that haven't usually fail to attract any of the benefits of opening their code. In short there is nothing confusing about the requirement to make the source available on request, and indeed GPL 3 goes further and specifies: b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product > (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a > written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as > long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product > model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a > copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the > product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical > medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no > more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this > conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the > Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge. > > Which if long winded is pretty clear that if you don't actually make the code readily available, then you have to include a specific binding offer to do so on request. _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
