[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Summary (was: Distributing GPL Software as binary ISO)

Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 09:39:08AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > Mentioning option 3 at all seems misleading, IMHO.  No one burning CDs
> > > from our archive receives such an offer, so it should be made clear that
> > > even non-profits cannot exercise this option.
> > 
> > Err...  They have received the binary code *and* the source, but
> > decided to ignore the source.  Debian distributes both source and
> > binary on their archive, for both individual packages and cd images.
> Yes, so Debian is using 3(a), not 3(b).

Indeed, I'd consider Debian uses (1) [1], since we're distributing
source and binary at the same time, through the Internet.

> Therefore no-one who redistributes
> directly from our archive can use 3(c).

That's my interpretation as well.

As a result, even non-profit entities need to provide the source as in
(2) [3(b) in your numbering, I guess], that is, use a written offer
and provide the source for three years at least.

This is important for all Debian people who are burning CD's for
exhibitions etc.

> (They key is that we provide only
> "current" sources, not sources from up to 3 years ago.)

Well, not exactly, it's a bit more complicated (as usual...).  We
provide the most recent source for the particular distribution,
i.e. this includes old versions of software in older distributions
(think slink/potato/bo/etc.) but maybe not the version which was
burned on an r0 CD.

> A second-stage distributor could use option 3 when redistributing something
> from a first-stage distributor, but is that really the audience of your
> text?  Such a second stage is probably not going to be a "vendor", but
> someone giving a CD to a friend.

Per definition: sure, it is.  The audience is "anybody who distributes
Debian on CD or via CD images".

The goal is to present all entities that distribute Debian a guideline
or a policy that lists their requirements to fulfil the license terms
properly.  I don't want to harm anybody, it's even the other way
around, I'd like to preserve them from being harmed by software
authors who see their license violated.



[1] http://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/legal

The good thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.
	-- Andrew S. Tanenbaum

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: