On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 07:54:23PM -0500, Joshua Gay wrote:
On 02/08/2013 06:05 PM, Kuno Woudt wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 02/08/2013 10:49 PM, Joshua Gay wrote:
>> ## Stuff I'm not sure about
>>
>> * Requiring the user to use a version control systems (e.g., providing
>> access only over a "git clone" statement).
>
> I think this should be allowed. The source code is in general aimed at
> developers (what are you going to do with the source code if you're not
> a developer?),
You might ask someone who knows how to program to make changes to the
program for you.
Consider this example. Let's say I work in a medical clinic and I buy a
device that has a lot of software on it. In the future it might become
buggy or I might want to get the software upgraded (recompile with a new
version of the kernel and other parts, etc). I might want to download a
save a copy of the complete and corresponding source because it may go
away in a few years and the manufacture might not be required to
continue providing it online.
I don't think requiring that user to use 'git clone' is
problematic. (Is the concern that this specific user may not have the
knowledge or software tools to do it?)
Also, one thing that concerns me is that people won't provide a
copy of
the Corresponding Source. They might point people to check out the trunk
of the source, which could be a newer version that does not correspond
with the current binary that is running. So even if we can assume that a
link to a git repo is OK, I hope that very clear and simple instructions
for getting the *Corresponding Source* would be provided and not just
the latest source.
I've wondered about whether a link to a git repo is sufficient for
AGPLv3 compliance, but this appears to be how all known 'benign'
examples of AGPLv3 projects are self-complying.
- RF