public server clause could be problematic

Posted Sep 27, 2005 14:22 UTC (Tue) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link]

"Suppose that the server's code gets actually maintained, does this force the maintainer to keep track of any minor version that has been exposed to the public, just in some user will demand it at some point in the future?"

My understanding of the download button license requirement is that this does impose the obligation to make all changes available for download, only in respect of the version currently in use while it is in use. The practicality of this requires that the code of the server as currently maintained needs to sit alongside the server and that the download button facility knows the location of the source tree from which the server is compiled or interpreted. Assuming that this source tree is maintained according to instructions which will be distributed along with the license this should not be an onerous obligation.

Another approach which could also meet a historical requirement based on past minor versions, might enable those providing such servers automatically uploading patches to a free-software repository, and these patches being automatically included within the effect of the download button. This technical approach to license compliance would also have benefits for upstream maintainers who may wish to include same patches in the mainstream distribution or popular forked versions of it. Having a more efficient patch distribution mechanism has obvious benefits for patch authors, who want to avoid the effort of repeated application of patches to newly installed mainstream version upgrades.