<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/08/2015 06:58, Tim Makarios
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:1439355497.2693.38.camel@qoheleth" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">2. The NCCL allows distribution of source code as well as of compiled
programs. The rest of the second requirement is a direct requirement
about the availability of source code, not about the <b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>licence<span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b> requiring
source code to be made available. Yes, someone could release a binary
blob under the NCCL, and that wouldn't make it open source software.
Someone could also release a binary blob under a BSD licence, and it
wouldn't be open source software, either. But that doesn't stop the BSD
licences from being recognized as open source licences, and it shouldn't
stop the NCCL from being recognized as such, either.</pre>
</blockquote>
[...]<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">It's an explanation of how a copyleft licence can <b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>ensure<span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b> that
something almost always happens without directly <b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>requiring<span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b> it to
happen.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
So I rest my case. Not copyleft. Or, better, aspirational copyleft.
<br>
<br>
Take copyleft out of your licence, you have something that it's not
better than BSD, and that is not a high yardstick either. <br>
<br>
Please stop wasting our collective time on this. <br>
<br>
[...]<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Go and ask GPL-violations, or FSF. People KEEP distributing GPL software
and refusing to comply with the legal requirements of the GPL.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre wrap="">Do these GPL violations involve distributing derivative works under
licences that permit recipients to freely redistribute those derivative
works, reverse engineer them, freely share the results of the reverse
engineering, build further derivative works on top of those results, and
freely distribute those further derivative works?
If so, then those violations would be evidence that the NCCL might not
be effective in ensuring that the source code of derivative works gets
published.
But if not, then those violations are merely examples of how even a
licence that <b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>requires<span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b> the publication of source code cannot <b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>ensure<span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b>
that it actually happens in a timely manner in every single case.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Frankly, I'm speechless. You seem to be totally missing what a
licence does and is there for, how compliance work is done, how
violations happen, how software is distributed (or conveyed) in real
world. <br>
<br>
I am excusing myself from this discussion.<br>
<br>
Best wishes<br>
<br>
Carlo<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>