On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 09:15:32PM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote:
I don't think requiring that user to use 'git clone' is
problematic. (Is the concern that this specific user may not have the
knowledge or software tools to do it?)
What if the sources are only available under a proprietary source code
management system which requires $$$ to obtain? i.e., like Perforce,
Bitkeeper, or <shudder> Clearcase? (Although I dont think Clearcase
has anonymous access, so maybe it would be prohibited on other
grounds.)
> Also, one thing that concerns me is that people won't
provide a copy of
> the Corresponding Source. They might point people to check out the trunk
> of the source, which could be a newer version that does not correspond
> with the current binary that is running. So even if we can assume that a
> link to a git repo is OK, I hope that very clear and simple instructions
> for getting the *Corresponding Source* would be provided and not just
> the latest source.
Well, technically they did provide a copy of the Corresponding Source.
They may just not have identified which revision out of the
potentially thousands of revisions in the repository _was_ the
Corresponding Source used to build said binary. (I guess the lawyerly
equivalent would be handing over seventeen truckloads of documents in
response to a discovery request, in paper form, with no index? :-)
It's good practice for binaries to identify the version id used to
build them, for example: v3.8-rc3-26-ge7b04ac. The question is
whether it's important enough to add this requirement to the copyleft
license, given the goal of keeping its word count under that of the
GPLv3....
- Ted