[copyleft-next] Network access to Corresponding Source

Theodore Ts'o tytso at mit.edu
Sat Feb 9 16:50:01 UTC 2013


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


More information about the copyleft-next mailing list