On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 11:46:03AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> Actually, I think the GPL would have serious problems if it didn't have
> 3(a). Having to keep the source around for three years would be a
> significant burden. What keeps the GPL free is that you have the option
> to offer sources and binaries together and be done with it, even if
> the recipient elects to take only the binaries.
>
> So yes, "You must give me your sources at cost if you give me your
> binaries" is onerous.
Why wouldn't you include the cost of the source in the fee you charge
for including it?
Requiring you to keep the sources for three years is onerous, yes.
And the GPL specifically says you have to *accompany* your binaries
with the complete machine-readable source code. You can't offer it,
and hope they don't accept; you have to *give* it to them. Giving away
CDs at tradeshows that don't include source comes under 3(b). I suppose
you could arrange to give everyone both binary and source CDs, then ask
them to give the latter back to you.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations --
you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
Attachment:
pgp6GkZZ8G4Uy.pgp
Description: PGP signature