Re: Knoppix and GPL
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 03:56:49PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> > > > > > date of this CD-Rom."
> > > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > > >
> > > > > Is this good enough? Shouldn't it be date of distribution?
> > > >
> > > > So, where can I get the sources of emacs version 1.0?
> > >
> > > Who did you get the binaries from, when and under 3a, 3b or 3c?
> > Sorry, apparently my point was not clear.
> > Short version: Knoppix build date == Knoppix distribution date
> > Long version: You have no control over who distributes your software at
> > which time. If someone decides, for whatever reason, to withhold your
> > software fr 20 years, and then distributes a binary version of your
> > software with your own written offer, the "3 years" limitation above
> > become pointless. Therefore, the 3 years can only be meant as 3 years
> > from the date when you, personally, make your software available, not
> > when someone else distributes your software.
> Correct. If build-date is the last date when you distributed the
> software yourself.
Technically, I'm not even actively distributing any software at any time.
The mirrors are downloading and distributing it without any action
initiated by me. Or magazines publish Knoppix, in some cases even
without asking me.
But from my point of view, it's not useful to argue about literal
interpretations of the GPL that would turn its meaning into the
absurd. The written offer is present so that people who, for
whatever reason, don't want to download sources from the official
mirrors, can get them from me directly, at no higher costs than
material, packaging and postage.