Thanks to all those who made diff's available.
Looking at: http://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl-draft-2006-07-27.html I have one main concern:
6d states:
[If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you have explicitly arranged with the operator of that server to keep the Corresponding Source available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements, and provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source.]
I worry that it may be convenient for the licensee to make such explicit arrangements with an inept and [especially] going-bankrupt operator in order to fulfill this requirement and yet restrict access to te source.
e.g. I contract with "my-little-brother inc." to make the source available, and immediately fulfil the clause. My little brother goes out of business and we both have a party the same day to celebrate our subversion of the GPL.
The "explicit arrangements" are irrelevant, it is up to the licensee to ensure that the source is ACTUALLY available (on whatever server) and that the availability is clearly communicated. I am not aware that there was any requirement for the licensee to actually own or control the server from which the source is distributed; it has always surely been the case that it could be subcontracted out to a services provider; but it is not the act of subcontracting that fulfils the intent of the GPL, but the act of continuously making the source available.
Comments?
Sam