On Fri, 2006-03-31 at 03:33 -0500, David Walluck wrote: > It's impossible to meet this requirement of the GPL philosophically. I > cannot speak as to the legal definition, but I am 100% sure that in > reality no one can meet this requirement. > > Here is the problem text (taken from the GPL FAQ): > > ``The GPL says you must offer access to copy the source code *from the > same place*; that is, *next to* the binaries.'' (emphasis mine) > > I defy anyone to define (definitively) ``same place'' and ``next to'' in > this context. It can't be done. The Internet has no concept of > ``place''. It is not physical. Therefore, it is impossible to actually > meet this definition. > > Let's even try to make a *reasonable guess* as to what they might mean > or want: > > * On the same disk---or is this not enough? > > * In the same directory---or is this not enough? > > * On the same sector of the hard disk---or is this not enough? > > * A contiguous sequence of bytes on the same physical platter of the > hard disk---or this this not enough? > > At least any ``reasonable interpretation'' would seem to rule out the > even using the ``same'' virtual HTTP or FTP server from using different > disks or having ``rotating'' mirrors. > > I even claim it is impossible (or, not reasonably possible) to ensure > the physical location of the file as being ``in the same place'' as > another file, unless you can somehow ensure a contiguous set of bytes on > your hard disk. And even then, who would reasonably be satisfied?
This is going off topic, but two quick points just to clarify: 1. The court would take a common-sense approach to "in the same place" and "next to". Contiguous bytes would be too narrow, and both being on the internet somewhere would be too broad. Probably "in the same place" would be interpreted as on the same website or ftp, and "next to" would mean that at the very least, there should be a link to the source on the same page or directory as the binary. 2. Point #1 is moot though, because it's from the GPL FAQ, which is not a legal document. What the GPL actually says is: "If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code." Of course this has never been tested in court, and interpretations would probably vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but personally, I would interpret "a designated place" as a subdirectory of a web site or ftp server (though not a specific, static URL), and "from the same place" would mean from that sub-directory, but not necessarily the same web page or ftp directory. But like I said, who knows what a court would actually say. Depends on how well the parties could explain to the judge what the hell a URL is and why Apaches are writing software now. ;-) Austin _______________________________________________ PLF-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://www.zarb.org/mailman/listinfo/plf-discuss
