On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 12:49:31AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 02:49:24AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > What about binaries via BitTorrent, source via HTTP? BT would be more > > capable than HTTP for many projects' binaries, and HTTP more capable for > > source, where a lot of people download binaries and few download source. > > They're clearly not equivalent, but it seems like a perfectly reasonable > > distribution scheme. > > The interpretation of "equivalent" here is up to the courts to settle; which > I think is how it should be.
If a license requires a court to interpret, to find out what my rights are, then it's a poor license; I should be able to find out what I'm allowed to do under a license by reading it, not waiting to be sued. I don't think this is an obscure corner case, either, but a realistic example, where I think the license should make its intent clear. > While "equivalent" doesn't mean "identical", > you can always resort to *using* identical methods if in doubt. If I have reason to want to use different methods, saying "don't do that" isn't a very helpful solution. > Just to be clear, do you believe there's a freeness issue here, or are you > merely suggesting ways the license could be improved? I think this clause is a superset of the GPLv2's version, so for Debian's purposes, I don't think there are freeness issues. (It's 4am, though, so I'm not sure.) -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]