The FSF's being stupid again, it seems...

[Bernd Petrovitsch]

On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 17:40 -0400, Rob Landley wrote:
[...]
> What's important to me is that people can _get_ the source code to reproduce 
> the binary they've got.  (Nobody's letting anyone off the hook for that.  It 
> must be available.)  And it can be tricky to make sure you've got the _right_ 

IANAL and I don't know what lawyers read in that license, but to me the
(exact) source code must be "<somewhere> on the Net reachable for the
next 3 years" and there is no requirement that the <somewhere> must be
under the same domain, on the same server or under my control (and I
technically won't call a contract with some server admin "under my
control", but for lawyers it is probably enough to have such a thing).

If that <somewhere> (remember: an upstream distributor) vanishes, I'm in
trouble and I have to find another working <somewhere> (e.g. a mirror)
or I loose all rights immediately (i.e. I habe to "remove" the
distribution of the binaries too).
And if my upstream distributor vanishes, I have certainly more severe
problems with my derived distribution than "source code of unmodified
upstream packages not right available". Hell, my own distribution is
more or less worthless .....

	Bernd
-- 
Firmix Software GmbH                   http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156                 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
          Embedded Linux Development and Services