On Saturday, Sep 20, 2003, at 01:14 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis <asd@suespammers.org> writes:I'm curious: Considering the GPL prohibits binary-only distribution under section 3, do you still hold that position?GPL 3b and 3c deal with that quite nicely. Debian, for example, distributes its GPL'd software by offering the source on the same medium.
"If you publish or distribute Opaque copies of the Document numbering more than 100, you must either include a machine-readable Transparent copy along with each Opaque copy," could indeed be read differently than the GPL. I think the FSF was thinking "book in a book store" here, not "FTP site" or "table at a Linux convention."
I hope the FSF (RMS cc'd) is willing to make a minor change to this wording to make it clear that if you offer a machine-readable Transparent copy, but your offer is declined, then that's fine.