Section 3.1 grants two permissions, both of which run directly counter to the IP laws of any jurisdiction I'm aware of. IANAL, but I can't see this standing up to any court challenge, anywhere in the world or any lawyer suggesting that their client rely on it.
Section 4.1.1 seems very broad. Any permission would seem to include modification. So if you make a modification and as long as that modification exists, you must provide access, plus one year. If you remove your modification, it must still exist for at least one additional year so you can never unmodify or cease distribution.
4.4 says this only applies to people you distribute the work to.
4.2 says source can be provided by a third party.
Taken together, they say: For one year after you stop distributing it to your customers, one of two things must be available: A) Have source code available to customers (on your web or ftp site) B) The source code exists publicly, such as on GitHub
The problem I see is that distributing the source itself triggers 4.1, so you have to make the source code available
The wages of sin are high but you get your money's worth.
Unenforceable (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Unenforceable (Score:2)
Bad wording again - it refers to 4.4 (Score:3)
The first phrase in 4.1 refers to 4.4.
4.4 says this only applies to people you distribute the work to.
4.2 says source can be provided by a third party.
Taken together, they say:
For one year after you stop distributing it to your customers, one of two things must be available:
A) Have source code available to customers (on your web or ftp site)
B) The source code exists publicly, such as on GitHub
The problem I see is that distributing the source itself triggers 4.1, so you have to make the source code available