Re: Knoppix and GPL
Klaus Knopper <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 11:30:43AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > 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.
> > Well, in that case you are distributing Knoppix.
> That is your interpretation. You may call it a "passive distribution",
> if you like.
If I understand the situation correctly, you are directly providing
copies to other people. If you burned a CD and gave it to a friend,
who then posted it, then you would only be providing copies to your
friend. Your friend could then pass on the three year offer.
But I don't think that is what is happening. Please let me know if
I'm mistaken, because if I am, then the whole problem is moot.
> > Other people then
> > redistribute it. For this, if you just make the source available from
> > the same place that the cdimage is available, then you're fine. It
> > sounds like you already have everything set up to burn source CD's.
> > Why don't you just put up an image of that? Then you wouldn't have to
> > bother with the 3-year warranty.
> And all mirrors would immediately stop mirroring Knoppix because of
> space and traffic reasons
Is one CD of source going to break the bank for your mirrors? I'm not
talking about mirroring all of Debian. Technically, you would only
have to do it for the programs under the GPL or other copyleft
licenses, though it is probably more trouble than it is worth to sort
them out. The increase in traffic will, most likely, be minimal.
> , and there will be no magazines distributing GNU/Linux because non
> of them would be willing to comply to a).
The magazines have to comply with either 3a) or 3b). They can't use
3c), because that is only available for non-commercial distribution.