Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Rob Myers <rob AT robmyers.org>]

Francesco Poli wrote:

> So, if you choose to make the source available at the time of the binary
> distribution (option a), you then have no other obligations in the
> future.

If you distribute the binary with the source you have no further 
obligations. However it is not sufficient to simply have both 
"available", you must actually distribute them together. See the GPL FAQ:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid

If I have misunderstood this then I apologise.

> > This is an important issue.  If you think that the parallel
> > distribution  clause should be rewritten to require longer
> > availability more  explicitly, that's a great topic to discuss.
>
> Taking what I said above into account, I don't think that introducing
> such a restriction to the parallel distribution proviso would be a good
> idea.

Yes. I have mentioned why I do not think this would be a good idea for 
the CC licenses. I should add that I *personally* wouldn't mind it. :-)

> [...]
> > That said, my understanding of the GPL's availability clause is that
> > one  can either "accompany" the work with source (and thus, the
> > availability  can terminate immediately) or offer to provide source
> > for three years  (still well shorter than many of the "all
> > unencumbered copies have been  lost" scenarios being offered to argue
> > against parallel distribution).
>
> It seems that your understanding is right: see above.

Certainly the availability of source can end as soon as binary 
availability ends. But it's difficult to separate availability of the 
two, as it should be.

- Rob.