requirement to release incomplete changes

[graham@belegost.mit.edu]

> > >
> > > For the F-CPU licence, i think that my goal is to have a new concept.
> > > it's not a freeware, not public domain, it's more "hardcore" than the GPL.
> > > it's a stronger licence than the GPL because of some of the additions
> > > i want to include (including the obligation to divulgue the source at
> > > no cost and no delay through the Web, anonymously for the retriever).
> > IMO this is going to cause problems. With the gpl you only have to
> > divulge the source when you distribute the software, not when you
> > are still working on developing it. If you're anything like me, while
> > you're working on any kind of design its a total mess of bits and pieces
> > till near the end. So you're half way through developing the
> > 'improved FCPU' and someone says to you 'I demand by my rights under
> > the FCPU license that you stop what you are doing, tidy up all your
> > files, tarball them for me, and please document what changes you have
> > made'. Will you do it? No, you'd say 'go away till I have my design
> > ready for distribution, when I will package it up for you'. Which
> > is what the gpl does anyway.
> 
> i disagree in the last sentences : what you are forced to divulgue is
> not necessary working or "nice", tidied. most CVS trees on the Net do
> not have complete working and nice projects. as with the GPL, the licence
> i want is mainly a "gentleman agreement". usually, the licence is enforced
> in severe cases, not just for annoying your neighbour.
> The GPL does not give you all the rights completely. there are cases where
> i can't access GCC sources "because i'm not a customer". but for a CPU,
> i would like to see what's inside it, what features are really implemented
> and how, before i buy it or in order to compare it with others. for a CPU,
> "compiling" is not simply going through GCC, it takes big ressources and budget.
> so i don't see the problem with asking to release the sources.
OK, one thing the gpl gives you is the right to modify a gpl-ed
product for 'in-house' only use. If you don't distribute it, you don't
have to release the modification. Maybe that's not perfect for a
utopian system, but it seems only practical to me. Say I run a design
dept in a big company, and I want to evaluate the fcpu as a possible
core, along with several other different ones. If I want to do that
I'm almost certainly going to have to make some changes to the core
(probably interfacing ones). So just to evaluate it I have to set up
a web site and public CVS tree?
But I also don't understand parts of your argument - especially about
the gpl. You say: 'there are cases where I can't access gcc sources'
Is gcc a typo for gpl? If so, and there are cases where you can't access
gpl-ed source without being a paying customer, you should tell the
FSF who will get their lawyers onto it. And I agree with what you say
about the information about the CPU having to be available - but in the
case you describe the CPU is being distributed, so the info would have
to be given out under the gpl too.

Graham