Second revision of GPLv3 draft

Sam Liddicott sam at
Mon Jul 31 11:07:46 UTC 2006

Thanks to all those who made diff's available.

Looking at:
I have one main concern:

6d states:

[If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the
Corresponding Source may be on a different server that supports
equivalent copying facilities, provided you have explicitly arranged
with the operator of that server to keep the Corresponding Source
available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements, and
provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying
where to find the Corresponding Source.]

I worry that it may be convenient for the licensee to make such explicit
arrangements with an inept and [especially] going-bankrupt operator in
order to fulfill this requirement and yet restrict access to te source.

e.g. I contract with "my-little-brother inc." to make the source
available, and immediately fulfil the clause. My little brother goes out
of business and we both have a party the same day to celebrate our
subversion of the GPL.

The "explicit arrangements" are irrelevant, it is up to the licensee to
ensure that the source is ACTUALLY available (on whatever server) and
that the availability is clearly communicated.  I am not aware that
there was any requirement for the licensee to actually own or control
the server from which the source is distributed; it has always surely
been the case that it could be subcontracted out to a services provider;
but it is not the act of subcontracting that fulfils the intent of the
GPL, but the act of continuously making the source available.



More information about the Discussion mailing list