Re: About the GPL
On Mon, Aug 31, 1998 at 11:28:37AM -0400, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> fog@irfmn.mnegri.it writes:
>
> It is aceptable to sell a CD with the binary part of a linux
> distribution and simply point the users to the ftp site for the
> sources? I think not, because the point 3b in the license says
> you have to give the sources for a small fee and that's not the
> case here in europe where the telephone calls cost a lot.
> Also the user can have a CD but no a modem, and not distributing
> the sources on the CD you simply deny her her right to access
> the sources.
>
> The GPL says the following:
>
> If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
> access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
> access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
> distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not
> compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
>
> This is the exception that allows source and binaries to be
> distributed separately on ftp sites. However, IMHO, according to the
> GPL, you can't distribute binaries on a CD and offer sources only via
> ftp.
>
> Other interpretations?
GPL v2 says:
"[...]
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
[...]
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
[...]"
(that's the "small fee" Federico was talking about).
The muddy parts are "for a charge no more than your cost of physically
performing source distribution", and "on a medium customarily used for
software interchange". I guess FTP is such a medium, and the telephone
fees may qualify as the "cost of physically performing source
distribution". Am I being too permissive? (what a word... Is there a
synonym without sexual connotations?).
--
Enrique Zanardi ezanardi@ull.es
Reply to: