Re: [Inkscape-devel] Re: covermount cd-rom distribution request
Derek Hinchliffe wrote:
On 5/18/06, Nicu Buculei <nicu@...398...> wrote:
Could the meaning of (3b) be stretched and the mention of the availability of the source code at http://inkscape.org be understood as a written offer to provide the source code?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCDistributeWithSourceOnInternet
That FAQ specifically addresses CD via mail order vs FTP, but I think the same would apply to a CD distributed on a magazine.
Indeed, this is the letter of the FAQ, but it really shows the age of the 2.0 version of the GPL, not only we now use other protocols for downloading files (HTTP or p2p instead of FTP), but today downloading is much more convenient compared with mailing a physical disc. I work also with OpenOffice.org where the *official* redistribution policy is "include the source code *or* tell the users where it is (http://www.openoffice.org)" (emphasis mine), and this policy generated a huge redistribution network (and, arguably, a large number of users)
On 5/18/06, Nicu Buculei (OCAL) <nicu@...398...> wrote:
Derek Hinchliffe wrote:
On 5/18/06, Nicu Buculei <nicu@...398...> wrote:
Could the meaning of (3b) be stretched and the mention of the availability of the source code at http://inkscape.org be understood as a written offer to provide the source code?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCDistributeWithSourceOnInternet
That FAQ specifically addresses CD via mail order vs FTP, but I think the same would apply to a CD distributed on a magazine.
Indeed, this is the letter of the FAQ, but it really shows the age of the 2.0 version of the GPL, not only we now use other protocols for downloading files (HTTP or p2p instead of FTP), but today downloading is much more convenient compared with mailing a physical disc. I work also with OpenOffice.org where the *official* redistribution policy is "include the source code *or* tell the users where it is (http://www.openoffice.org)" (emphasis mine), and this policy generated a huge redistribution network (and, arguably, a large number of users)
The FAQ shows the age of the FAQ, but I think the wording of the clauses it refers to in GPL v2.0 are general enough to still be relevant today.
Yes, today it is usually more convenient to download than to get a physical CD, but even the aged FAQ acknowledges this when it says "If the FTP access is convenient enough, perhaps no one will choose to mail-order a copy. If so, you will never have to ship one". But the point is, if there *is* a reason why the person prefers to get the binary from a Magazine CD rather than download it, then they should have the freedom to get the source in the same manner. That is a fundamental idea of Free Software.
I can understand that is becomes harder with such a large package as OOo, but even then both the binary and source fit easily onto a single CD. Anyway it is interesting that OOo went with that policy in the end because that would have technically been violating the LPGL (any other merits for why it has been a useful policy aside).
Cheers Derek
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 03:42:40PM +0800, Derek Hinchliffe wrote:
On 5/18/06, Nicu Buculei (OCAL) <nicu@...398...> wrote:
Derek Hinchliffe wrote:
On 5/18/06, Nicu Buculei <nicu@...398...> wrote:
Could the meaning of (3b) be stretched and the mention of the availability of the source code at http://inkscape.org be understood as a written offer to provide the source code?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCDistributeWithSourceOnInternet
That FAQ specifically addresses CD via mail order vs FTP, but I think the same would apply to a CD distributed on a magazine.
Indeed, this is the letter of the FAQ, but it really shows the age of the 2.0 version of the GPL, not only we now use other protocols for downloading files (HTTP or p2p instead of FTP), but today downloading is much more convenient compared with mailing a physical disc.
Yes, today it is usually more convenient to download than to get a physical CD, but even the aged FAQ acknowledges this when it says "If the FTP access is convenient enough, perhaps no one will choose to mail-order a copy. If so, you will never have to ship one". But the
Well, whatever the case of the particular terminology of the license, I personally feel that as long as they mention that the source code is available from our website, then I see nothing to be particularly concerned about.
To be honest, I'd rather the user come to our site anyway to get the source code, as they'd get more recent stuff, and would see how to join our community and contribute back. In my mind, these days the value of having the sourcecode on their CD is rather minimal, even if technically the GPL would require it. I don't think we would ever hassle a magazine for not including the Inkscape source, as long as they made mention of the source availability from our site.
Bryce
participants (3)
-
Bryce Harrington -
Derek Hinchliffe -
Nicu Buculei (OCAL)