Re: DFSG and GPL -- source retention
Robert Woodcock <rcw@debian.org> writes:
> They are not legally obligated to publically redistribute the
> sources if they are publically redistributing the binaries.
> Therefore this entire discussion is pointless and can end here,
> since there is no GPL violation, only nitpicking about whether or
> not we are providing a valid written offer.
>
> Mirrors which are concerned about this should write such a written
> offer and put it in their .message file in the top level of their
> debian archive (I see no reason why such an offer would take more
> than 3-4 lines).
There's still a problem if "written" is interpreted to mean "on
paper"; you can't give a paper offer to everyone who visits your FTP
site.
Should be it be interpreted that way? Well, IANAL. But I would say
that someone who assumed "written" to imply a .message file without
asking the copyright holder what they thought would be on distinctly
shaky ground.
If the copyright holder thinks "written" allows .message then whatever
RMS meant by the term you're OK as only the copyright holder is in a
position to sue you. If they think it means "on paper" then you could
find yourself settling the question in court, which would be risky and
expensive.
--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
Reply to: