Re: Source code via download -- MPL Alpha 1 Draft Released

  On 19.08.2010 20:09, Luis Villa wrote:
> there is now a pretty broad understanding of what 'reasonable' 
> distribution is for free/open software

I recently found that I don't even agree with other Mozilla people what 
"open source project" means (they say license only ala Oracle, I say 
open for contribution), so I don't think you can assume a shared 
understanding of "reasonable", esp. with a hostile party, at a court.

> Why shouldn't you make the source available per download?
> Generally, you should; that is 'reasonable' modern open source 
> practice. But you can imagine situations where it might be hard to 
> include source through the available technology (e.g., some 
> application stores);

You can always offer a download on your own server and cite the URL in 
the app. All you need to do is guarantee that it stays live (the old MPL 
even specced how long).

> we'd like to encourage people to be creative there

Frankly, I'd rather have people not be "creative" when it comes to 
fulfilling open source license requirements. Companies have been way too 
creative in this area.
(Sorry for picking on your word, could not resist :) )

>> In fact, I'd mandate that it must be available freely to everybody 
>> (not just recipients of the executable) for free per Internet HTTP. 
>> You received free, you shall give free.
> That would be broader than any other open source license

MPL 1.1 was very close to that.

> generally speaking even GPL only creates obligations to people whom 
> you've distributed executables to, rather than to the entire world.

Frankly, I don't see why, given that these receivers can then freely 
redistribute, so there's little point.

Internal use is not covered anyways, so that's irrelevant.

I don't know what would happen if a company sold commercial software 
based on Gecko, and in the license for the software mandated that the 
MPL source is not re-distributed. The customer could then get the 
source, and the MPL would allow them to give it to me, but the other 
contract would forbid it. Essentially close-sourcing the MPL changes. I 
don't think we want that.

So, I don't see a point of this loophole "source for customers only".