Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 01:08:03PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> >Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> So why is "You must give the source to the recipient of the binaries"
> >> not equally objectionable from this point of view?
> >That is simply a restriction on the allowed forms of distribution (namely,
> >you may distribute source, or binaries plus source; you are not granted
> >permission to distribute binaries alone). Similarly, (under various
> >licenses), you may only distribute with ChangeLogs attached, only with
> >copyright notices, only with a copy of the license attached, only in the
> >form of an "original" plus "patches", etc. Distribution only on CD is also
> >such a restriction, but an unacceptable one.
> You could look at it that way. On the other hand, if I release my
> GPLed code under 3(b) then anyone who receives it can pass on the offer
> I gave them (under 3(c)). I am then obliged to pass on my modifications
> directly to people who I never provided binaries to. Is distribution
> under 3(b) and 3(c) non-free?
Distribution under 3(b) and 3(c) is an additional freedom, above and
beyond the option presented by 3(a). Since Debian only uses 3(a), I think
debian-legal can safely punt on this question. ;-)
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
Reply to: