Skip to content

Clear and unambiguous time periods for source availability#4

Open
farnz wants to merge 1 commit intopjakma:masterfrom
farnz:patch-1
Open

Clear and unambiguous time periods for source availability#4
farnz wants to merge 1 commit intopjakma:masterfrom
farnz:patch-1

Conversation

@farnz
Copy link

@farnz farnz commented Jun 30, 2023

This closes off two gaps:

  1. It was unclear how long I needed to make source available if I distributed a binary; now it's clear that source must be available for 2 years.

  2. The intent of 3.1c is to ensure that I can get modifications; however, if the software is such that the results are useful years after it ran, I could deploy and publish modifications, use the software, get my results, shut down the deployment, wait 2 years after the deployment started, get rid of the modified source and crow about my results. You then don't get the benefit of my modifications, even though I'm compliant.

This closes off two gaps:

1. It was unclear how long I needed to make source available if I distributed a binary; now it's clear that source must be available for 2 years.

2. The intent of 3.1c is to ensure that I can get modifications; however, if the software is such that the results are useful years after it ran, I could deploy and publish modifications, use the software, get my results, shut down the deployment, wait 2 years after the deployment started, get rid of the modified source and crow about my results. You then don't get the benefit of my modifications, even though I'm compliant.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant