Is this better for tomsrtbt?

Tom Oehser tom at
Wed Apr 25 11:44:56 UTC 2001

>     here with bzip2, I get 51,200 bytes for BSD, GPL, and LGPL, tarred.
>     That should be acceptable for a TRB distribution archive, no?

It breaks one of the primary design goals, which is that the tarball can
be created from the floppy and vice versa in a completely symetrical way,
because there is no distribution archive content that isn't available on
the floppy, currently, which is desirable.  So, even if I do it the way
you are suggesting, it means that it is illegal to make a copy of a any
tomsrtbt floppy and give it to someone.  Adding the 51K to the archive is,
given how tomsrtbt is used, irrelevant, and adding it to the floppy image
itself is problematic at best.

If my download link is the only way I distribute it, and if my download
link has the tarball and the licenses, then I am in fact distributing the
licenses with the programs, the risc of non compliance is with anyone who
then might RE-distribute it thinking they could create the tarball from
the floppy and then distribute that tarball without the licenses.  I think
I am OK on that risk with just a one-line notice pointing out that I have
distributed X licenses along with the distribution (and all the mirrors do
the same, that is, they have those top level files in the SAME ARCHIVE as
the tarball), and that if you re-distribute it, you had better do the
same.  I can just picture a user fest where they have a box of tomsrtbt
floppies and a box of license floppies and they clip one of each together
with a paperclip in order to give you tomsrtbt, and then evey time they
hand such a bundle to a user group attendee that person hands back the
licencse floppy, having received it.  Maybe I should distribute it that
way, as a 2 diskette package, where the licenses are on diskette 2?

>     support, and list it as a source tarball.  The advantage is that by

Unifying the makefiles into one source tarball that can be build with one
'make' command is in the plan.  I am getting married on 5/7, and have
already a mortgage and 2 children (we've been engaged for 8 years), so
this is not going to be something that happens quickly.  I am going to
focus any short term time on plugging any non-compliant behaviour.

Now, again, as I read it, if I provide an http or ftp directory, which
contains 10 files, and one of those has all the licenses, and one is the
tarball that makes the floppy, and one is an html file that clearly lists
both and explains what they are and why, then *I* am in compliance with:

 ... give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License
     along with the Program.

Now, if someone chooses to copy 1 from column A and 0 from column B to
their system, they are fine, unless and until they decide to redistribute
it.  I will make sure all the licenses are distributed clearly with the
program (that is, any place you have an opportunity to get the program
from me will also have the licenses shown in the same package or
directory), and I will add notices to the affect that the tomsrtbt floppy
*by itself* cannot be copied or distributed, because it does not include
the license.  Heck, I'll put a prompt right in the clone.s script.

And if it really becomes necessary to replace emacs with 2^17 bytes of
licenses on the actual floppy, there will be a certain balanced irony.
And I'll still have vi.


More information about the License-discuss mailing list