Re: Summary (was: Distributing GPL Software as binary ISO)
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 09:39:08AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Mentioning option 3 at all seems misleading, IMHO. No one burning CDs
> > from our archive receives such an offer, so it should be made clear that
> > even non-profits cannot exercise this option.
>
> Err... They have received the binary code *and* the source, but
> decided to ignore the source. Debian distributes both source and
> binary on their archive, for both individual packages and cd images.
Yes, so Debian is using 3(a), not 3(b). Therefore no-one who redistributes
directly from our archive can use 3(c). (They key is that we provide only
"current" sources, not sources from up to 3 years ago.)
A second-stage distributor could use option 3 when redistributing something
from a first-stage distributor, but is that really the audience of your
text? Such a second stage is probably not going to be a "vendor", but
someone giving a CD to a friend.
--
Richard Braakman
"I sense a disturbance in the force"
"As though millions of voices cried out, and ran apt-get."
(Anthony Towns about the Debian 3.0 release)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: