On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 07:32:51 -0700, Bruce wrote in message <[email protected]>:
> I do tell companies whose products are subject to resale that they > need to keep source online long-term. ..they don't need to, under the GPL's. I agree this is wise, though. > But we can't keep them from going out of business, and we can't > protect ourselves from various kinds of ignorance and worse. ..hint ideas: "No source code with resold cars has no impact on resale value?" Easily extendable to "Anyone who sells his 4 year old Caddilac without source code loses his license to Linux!!!". "And that again, has no impact on initial sales???" ;o) "I'll chk back with the Toyota guys again..." etc. ;oD > So, it is a good idea for an archive to be operated of all > redistributable source we can find. ..hear, hear. :o) > Ralph Corderoy <[email protected]> wrote: > >Hi, > > > >Bruce Perens wrote: > >> If they implement the process I explained in the previous email on > >> this topic, all parties can be in compliance. > > > >Unlike many bits of shiny technical equipment, a car still has a > >useful life after three years and can be re-sold on. If I acquire a > >four-year-old Cadillac, the "at least three years" requirement of > >3(b) would have been met and I might not be able to obtain source. > > > >Given software's spread into longer-living commodities, some form of > >archiving seems to keep popping up as a future need. > > > >Cheers, Ralph. > -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case.
