On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Richard Fontana
<fontana(a)sharpeleven.org> wrote:
> 3) Many (most?) app stores distribute to locked-down platforms,
where
> user rights are restricted by means both legal and technical. This is
> an important issue, and at the current time an issue that often
> appears in the same places as app stores, but it is a different issue,
> and should be resolved independently. Or to put it another way:
> locked-down platforms can be locked down without an app store, and app
> stores can deliver to non-locked-down platforms. Given this, the
> license should take care, while solving the lockdown problem, not to
> accidentally draft restrictions that would prohibit someone from using
> an app-store-like approach to deliver code to a rights-respecting
> platform. Again, I think copyleft.next handles this the right way,
> divorcing the anti-lockdown text (Corresponding Source, part (ii))
> from discussion of the delivery mechanism (elsewhere in Sec. 9).
I don't think there is any anti-lockdown text as such. Maybe this
needs to be clarified. Did I mistakenly merge a bkuhn patch? :-)
My understanding of the functional requirement of Sec. 9(ii) was that
it required the *ability* to install, not merely a description of how
it might be done:
"all scripts, instructions and information known to you necessary for
a skilled developer to build, compile, generate, modify, install and
run the Covered Work."
i.e., if the "skilled developer" cannot "install and run the Covered
Work" (say, because of a lack of keys), then the Corresponding Source
has not been supplied.
Luis