On 08/05/2012 04:59 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
(e.g., my
suggested removal of 7(b), which is a pro-distributor anachronism:
https://gitorious.org/copyleft-next/copyleft-next/merge_requests/13)
I was going to raise this anyway but Luis mentioned the merge request.
As one may surmise from comparison of copyleft-next section 7 to the
first part of GPLv3 section 6, I consider the latter (detailing the
ways in which a 'conveyer' of object code can satisfy the
Corresponding Source requirement) to be way more complicated than is
necessary. In earlier commits I got rid of unnecessary provisions like
the 'BitTorrent clause' and the traditional though
successively-narrowed 'occasional noncommercial passing on of written
offers to friends' provision, slimmed down some of the remaining
language, and tried to harmonize it with GPLv2 section 3 in certain
respects. However, I retained the feature, unique, so far as I know,
to the relatively ancient-lineage GNU GPL family, of an explicit
3-year written offer option as a way of satisfying the source code
requirement.
Luis Villa has proposed deletion of the written offer option
https://gitorious.org/copyleft-next/copyleft-next/merge_requests/13
calling it an anachronism.
I'm torn on this one. Luis is correct in calling this provision
"pro-distributor". I'm curious to know if anyone else has opinions on
this. Especially Bradley, given his GPL enforcement experience.
- RF