James A. Robinson writes ("XV"):
> While the source package might contain all this, the binary package
> does not contain any of the README, INSTALL, or doc files. I would
> think this goes against the meaning of the copyright, as he obviously
> wants people to be able to *use* XV, and the xv.1 man page points to
> the docs.
We could interpret `distribution' to mean the way the GPL interprets
it. Would we get away with that ? There are quite a few binary-only
xv kits out there; at least we actually provide the source.