Re: Unidentified subject!

[Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>]

    >> 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.

I'm not sure what the scenario is, or what the perceived problem is.