Raul Miller wrote:
I think we are. We're distributing: The unmodified sources The modified sources The binaries without libssl The binaries with libssl These are packed efficiently, but by issuing slightly different commands you can get each of these. The distribution of any one of these does not mean that we're not distributing the others. The rather clever mechanisms we're using to efficiently distribute these don't really matter, either. The fact that a lot of people worked together on this doesn't really make a difference. The fact that the first three use a different set of programs to unpack than the last doesn't really make a difference -- not when we've been so careful to make sure that the last works.
GPL 1, 2, and 3 apply to distributions in "object or executable form". GPL 1 and 2 apply to distributions in source code form. The GPL has *clearly* and *intentionally* placed additional restrictions (given in section 3) on binary distribution.
That is why whether we distribute in source or object for matters, because the FSF made it so when they drafted the GPL. This is not some trivial technical workaround trying to exploit a arcane loophole in the license; it is a difference that --- judging from the license, the preamble, and the position statements on fsf.org --- the FSF considers extremely important.
BTW: Most piece of modern, open-source software I've seen comes with a "few simple commands" to build and install a binary; they typically are "./configure; make" or just "make". Are you arguing they are effectively distributing a binary, too?