Re: Distributing GPL software.
On 1/12/06, Mahesh T. Pai <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Download the binary and the *corresponding* source code. While
> distributing only the binary. put on the CD, a file saying that the
> source code to every binary on the CD is available from you to the
> person you gave the cd. (``Sources are available from <address>''
> will do). Now, if somebody says that you are doing commercial
> distribution, you can comply by giving sources to the persons who
> contact you at the <address>. (you now comply with 3(b) ).
Hey Carrera, just ignore what the GNUtians say. If somebody says
that you must give sources "or else", reply "17 USC 109, piss off".
< quotes from dmca/sec-104-report-vol-<2|3>.pdf >
Red Hat, Inc.:
Let me just clarify that I don't think anyone today intends to
impact our licensing practices. I haven't seen anything in the
comments, nor have I heard anything today that makes me think
someone does have that intention. What we're concerned about
are unintended consequences of any amendments to Section 109.
The primary difference between digital and nondigital products
with respect to Section 109 is that the former are frequently
licensed. ... product is also available for free downloaded
from the Internet without the printed documentation, without
the box, and without the installation service. Many open source
and free software products also embody the concept of copyleft.
... We are asking that amendments not be recommended that would
jeopardize the ability of open source and free software
licensor to require [blah blah]
Time Warner, Inc.:
We note that the initial downloading of a copy, from an
authorized source to a purchaser's computer, can result in
lawful ownership of a copy stored in a tangible medium.
[but electronic redistribution/move-and-delete of that copy to
downstream recipient is not covered by first sale]
First, as conceded by Time Warner, digital transmissions can
result in the fixation of a tangible copy. By intentionally
engaging in digital transmissions with the awareness that a
tangible copy is made on the recipient's computer, copyright
owners are indeed transferring ownership of a copy of the work
to lawful recipients. Second, the position advanced by Time
Warner and the Copyright Industry Organizations is premised
on a formalistic reading of a particular codification of the
first sale doctrine. When technological change renders the
literal meaning of a statutory provision ambiguous, that
provision "must be construed in light of its basic purpose"
and "should not be so narrowly construed as to permit evasion
because of changing habits due to new inventions and
discoveries." Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S.
151, 156-158 (1975). The basic purpose of the first sale
doctrine is to facilitate the continued flow of property
I'm with libraries,
http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation oughta be