[License-review] For Legacy Approval: TOPPERS License

[Yutaka MATSUBARA]

>>> 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.
>>
>> This assumption is not permanently guaranteed. For example, after you
>> distribute data packets A on the web, you move to a desert island.
>
> That is why the GPL requires the packets to be sent (or offered) at the
> same time. :-)

That makes sense. :)

>> So, I believe that if GPLv2 Section3 and GPLv3 Section 6 are not
>> discrimination, TOPPERS lisence (3)(b) can be also approved as
>> non-discrimination.
>
> There is a reasonable amount of historical precedent that mandatory
> notification requirements make a license not open source.
>
> However, as noted in this thread, this question is moot because people
> can just do a) instead.

Yes. Are there any questions or suggestions?

Thanks,
Yutaka