[License-review] For Legacy Approval: TOPPERS License

[Gervase Markham]

On 11/06/15 17:31, Yutaka MATSUBARA wrote:
> We believe this is not discrimination. If it is discrimination,
> the clause for conveying the corresponding source code in GPLv2 Section
> 3 and GPLv3 Section 6 can be also discrimination against people who
> cannot follow these texts.

That's not so. The clause in e.g. GPLv2 section 3 only requires source
to go where the binaries go. It is assumed that if you are capable of
sending someone data packet A (the binary), you can send them data
packet B (the source) also.

Problems arise, however, in two related situations.

Firstly, a stipulation that data packet B has to be sent even if packet
A is not sent. This happens with e.g. "if you modify this software at
all, you have to tell me". This prevents someone on a desert island from
modifying the software, and it's not free for them.

Secondly, a stipulation that data packets A and B have to go to
different places is problematic - because an ability to send data to A
does not imply an ability to send data to somewhere else. This happens
with e.g. "if you distribute modified copies to anyone, you must tell
me/send me a copy". This prevents a closed community from modifying the
software.

Gerv