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

Re: GPL/GFDL reference cards: what to distribute?

Let me preface by the obligatory: I am not a lawyer. The following is
not and should not be construed as legal advice.

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Jim Marhaus wrote:
> My understanding of the GPL is that copies of the GPL license and
> source must be distributed as well, or in lieu of source a 3-year
> source offer must be made, and it is not sufficient to merely point
> the recipients to the website we downloaded the card from. Is this
> correct, or am I interpreting the license too strictly?

It is my understanding that distributing the source alongside the hard
copies is sufficient. 

FE, if you're distributing the reference cards and have a stack of
cd's with the source next to them for people who want source, that
should satisfy 3a) appropriately.

    How can I make sure each user who downloads the binaries also gets the

    You don't have to make sure of this. As long as you make the
    source and binaries available so that the users can see what's
    available and take what they want, you have done what is required
    of you. It is up to the user whether to download the source.

    Our requirements for redistributors are intended to make sure the
    users can get the source code, not to force users to download the
    source code even if they don't want it.[1]

> Additionally, I noticed another reference card available under the
> "GFDL" license, at the link below. Contrary to the license, however,
> I didn't see a copy of the GFDL inside the card. Is a work still
> distributable (under the GFDL), when it does not include the GFDL
> license, or must we avoid redistributing the document entirely?

Erm, this is particularly nasty. I'm not quite sure how a two page
document interacts with the GFDL, especially since it doesn't fulfil
GFDL 4A, 4H, and 4I. You'd probably need to talk to upstream or
licensing@gnu.org to decipher this one. [My personal understanding is
that it cannot be distributed, but I'm not sure either way.]

Don Armstrong

1: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#HowCanIMakeSureEachDownloadGetsSource
It seems intuitively obvious to me, which means that it might be wrong
 -- Chris Torek


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: