Mark Seaborn writes:
> > I think we should still insist that distributors of modified
> > versions must provide source code, though.
>
> Ok, this seems reasonable.
>
> My biggest remaining problem with having to provide source is what
> medium it should be provided on.
[...]
> There are modern computers [...] that can't read either floppy discs
> [...] or CD-ROMs or don't have Internet access. But floppy discs are a
> lowest common denominator [...] But decades from now, floppy discs might
> be useless to everyone. Why should they be hardwired into a license?
I agree that it would be a bad idea to specify a particular medium.
The GPL says that [in the relevant circumstances] source must be
distributed "on a medium customarily used for software interchange".
[Note that it doesn't say the source must be available on the same medium
as the program, which would be meaningless in terms of music]
This doesn't require that the source is available in a format which is
universal, or even common. But remember this is the exceptional case
we're talking about - you'd have to be gratuitously awkward to use a
strange format like 5.25" floppies. It wouldn't help you keep the source
secret - someone would put the source on Mutopia and from there it could
be distributed on floppy, CDROM and punched tape. So you probably would
just not bother if you had any sense.
In practise, then, the GPL usually ensures that the source is available on
a common medium such as floppies, but it doesn't enshrine the *right* to
have the source in such a format. Would this be good enough for us?
Right now I can't think of any good alternative. This will only matter in
the exceptional case, so we shouldn't make rules which make things awkward
for normal distributors (such as hardwiring the word "floppy disc" into
the license).
Does anyone else have any suggestions?
Thanks,
David
