Re: Knoppix and GPL
Klaus Knopper:
>> Is nobody gettng tired of this topic? I thought we already cleared
>> things up. The written offer is present on each CD, which complies
>> to the GPL. I have an email from Dave Turner from the FSF stating
>> that Knoppix IS in compliance with the GPL. Is there anything more
>> to discuss?
Andrew Suffield:
> This paragraph is highly confused.
>
> Firstly, "Knoppix" can't be "in compliance with the GPL". The GPL is a
> license. It applies to people. You cannot sue a piece of software. It is
> the people who distribute Knoppix who must comply with the GPL. ^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Definitely. I read the above paragraph as "knoppix as distributed by me
is in compliance", since Dave Turner wrote to Klaus Knopper. Not confused
at all to me.
> Secondly, a "written offer" in a CD image is a really weird notion. [...]
If legally binding, it's as valid. I can't tell if it's legally binding
but I assume it is, as Dave Turner is not a novice at all.
> Lastly, this "written offer" does *NOT* exempt commercial distributers from
> being required to either:
> a) provide the source along with the binaries
> b) provide a written offer *OF THEIR OWN*, valid for at least three years,
> to provide source on demand
Sure. But as you write above (and underlined by me), that is _their_
problem, not Klaus Knopper's.
That said most magazines have this problem, at least in Italy. Still, not
a problem for the developers or original packagers, as they comply with
license terms -- it remains a problem for them as users, though.
/alessandro
Reply to: